Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/25/2012 08:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>
>> But I should definitely improve HACKING and have it document the
>> standards and best practice for commit logs (since the GCS are sadly
>> weak and out-of-date in this regard).
>>
> And here is my attempt. WDYT? I
On 02/25/2012 08:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
> But I should definitely improve HACKING and have it document the
> standards and best practice for commit logs (since the GCS are sadly
> weak and out-of-date in this regard).
>
And here is my attempt. WDYT? I will push in a couple of days if
On 02/25/2012 08:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
> But I should definitely improve HACKING and have it document the
> standards and best practice for commit logs (since the GCS are sadly
> weak and out-of-date in this regard).
>
And here is my attempt. WDYT? I will push in a couple of days if
On 02/25/2012 03:14 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> One ludicrously minor nit: we should put references to bug reports,
>> names of people to thanks, or old commits that introduced a regression
>> *before* the list of touched files, and always separated by a leading
>> and a t
On 02/25/2012 07:10 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
Hi Nick, and thanks for all the feedback.
> One comment below:
>
> On 2012-02-25 14:39 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> [...]
>> And here is the documentation about the fact that a dist-hook should be ready
>> to deal with read-only file
Hi Stefano,
One comment below:
On 2012-02-25 14:39 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[...]
> And here is the documentation about the fact that a dist-hook should be ready
> to deal with read-only files. I will apply the attached patch soonish to
> master
> if there is no objection.
[...]
> +@noin
On 02/25/2012 01:41 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/25/2012 12:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>
>> Ah, this is a better example. Indeed we have a problem here (at the very
>> least a documentation one).
>>
> As a first step, the attached patch should improve the existing documentation
> on
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> One ludicrously minor nit: we should put references to bug reports,
> names of people to thanks, or old commits that introduced a regression
> *before* the list of touched files, and always separated by a leading
> and a trailing blank line; like this:
Adjusted and pushe
On 02/25/2012 02:32 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> ...
>> The patch is OK, of course. Extra kudos if you add a reference in the
>> commit message to the commit where I broke the tests.
>
> Hi Stefano,
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Here you go:
>
> [BTW, if you like gitk
On 02/25/2012 01:41 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/25/2012 12:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>
>> Ah, this is a better example. Indeed we have a problem here (at the very
>> least a documentation one).
>>
> As a first step, the attached patch should improve the existing documentation
> on
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
> The patch is OK, of course. Extra kudos if you add a reference in the
> commit message to the commit where I broke the tests.
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for the explanation.
Here you go:
[BTW, if you like gitk's highlighting of SHA1 strings in logs, and
compile your own ve
On 02/24/2012 09:36 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
>
> I use the rule that no part of the build should write to srcdir, ever:
> so it should be possible to do a successful VPATH build with a
> maintainer-cleaned, read-only srcdir.
>
Note that automake does not honour this expectation (for example,
distribu
On 02/25/2012 12:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
> Ah, this is a better example. Indeed we have a problem here (at the very
> least a documentation one).
>
As a first step, the attached patch should improve the existing documentation
on "make distcheck" a little. I will apply soonish to master
Hi Jim.
On 02/25/2012 12:44 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I noticed the gcj4 test failing on master and wrote this patch,
> but figured it belonged on the maint branch.
>
Nope, it's a regression introduced by me on master recently. The maint
branch should unaffected.
BTW, I'm sure I had tested the '
I noticed the gcj4 test failing on master and wrote this patch,
but figured it belonged on the maint branch. Humph. It doesn't even
apply there, due to lack of defs-static.in, and in fact the gcj4 test
doesn't fail on maint, either.
Is there a schedule for merging maint into master?
>From 39c1
Hi Dave, Jeff. Thanks for the patch!
On 02/25/2012 03:22 AM, Dave Goodell wrote:
> Portland Group C Compiler support based on a code from Jeff Daily @ PNNL
> via the automake list and automake bug #8880:
>
By a very cursory look, this patch seems safe and unobtrusive (it shouldn't
influence the
16 matches
Mail list logo
