On 09/10/17 18:13, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I'm not looking for political propaganda. What would I gain from it? I
> don't really have any strong connections here. In fact I'm probably
> ticking a few people off. I'm calling your practices out for what they
> are, since nobody else appears willing
On 09/10/2017 02:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu nie, 10.09.2017 o godzinie 00∶39 -0700, użytkownik Daniel
> Campbell napisał:
>> On 09/09/2017 12:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> W dniu pią, 08.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶19 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
>>> napisał:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:05
W dniu nie, 10.09.2017 o godzinie 00∶39 -0700, użytkownik Daniel
Campbell napisał:
> On 09/09/2017 12:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu pią, 08.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶19 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> > napisał:
> > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What
On 09/09/2017 12:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu pią, 08.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶19 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you think about it? Is there anything else that needs being
>>> covered?
>>>
>>
>> FYI - if anybod
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu pią, 08.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶19 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
>>
>> FYI - if anybody does want to make any comments on the proposed
>> devmanual changes to implement the new tags please comment at:
>>
>> https://github.com/g
W dniu pią, 08.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶19 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
napisał:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > What do you think about it? Is there anything else that needs being
> > covered?
> >
>
> FYI - if anybody does want to make any comments on the proposed
On 09/08/2017 11:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> FYI - if anybody does want to make any comments on the proposed
> devmanual changes to implement the new tags please comment at:
>
> https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org/pull/72
>
> For that matter, if you want to even know what the proposed
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> What do you think about it? Is there anything else that needs being
> covered?
>
FYI - if anybody does want to make any comments on the proposed
devmanual changes to implement the new tags please comment at:
https://github.com/gentoo/devma
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 10:05:06 CEST schrieb Michał Górny:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> There have been multiple attempts at grasping this but none so far
> resulted in something official and indisputable. At the same time, we
> end having to point our users at semi-official guides which change
> in u
On 07/27/2017 04:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Right, so github automatically closes pull requests when encountering
>> Closes, that doesn't indicate that Closes can't be used for other
>> platforms to do similar things, or closing things manually if provided
>> through other channels. The current
On czw, 2017-07-27 at 16:08 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/27/2017 03:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > ** Closes:
> > > > > > https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/ > > > > > ki>; — to automatically close a GitHub pull request,
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this a generic tag for
On 07/27/2017 03:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> ** Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/ ki>; — to automatically close a GitHub pull request,
Is this a generic tag for any pull request of any platform?
>>> No. As I've told multiple times already, there are *no* generic tags.
On czw, 2017-07-27 at 15:54 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/27/2017 03:52 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On śro, 2017-07-26 at 19:17 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > > On 07/25/2017 10:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > ** Fixes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/NN;;;
> > > > —
> > > >
On 07/27/2017 03:52 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On śro, 2017-07-26 at 19:17 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 07/25/2017 10:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> ** Fixes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/NN;; —
>>> to indicate a fixed bug,
>>
>> At this point fixes is overloading
>>> ** Fixes: commit-id
On śro, 2017-07-26 at 19:17 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/25/2017 10:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > ** Fixes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/NN;; —
> > to indicate a fixed bug,
>
> At this point fixes is overloading
> > ** Fixes: commit-id (commit message) — to indicate fixing a
> > pre
On 07/26/2017 07:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I was thinking that it would make far more sense to use "Bug" for
> Gentoo bugs, and use something like "Reference" or "Remote-Bug" for
> non-Gentoo bugs. 99% of the time commits will reference a Gentoo bug.
I like the idea of Reference for URL specif
On 07/26/2017 07:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Also, I suggest using either URLs or bug numbers, but not both.
> Otherwise you end up having to copy the URL over, then copy the ID
> only and paste it in the summary. That is an extra step.
I wouldn't have bug ID in summary at all unless it provides
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/26/2017 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> The same applies to #123456 in the summary line, though. I don't see a
>> good reason for using a URL after the "Bug:" keyword as long as bare
>> numbers are used elsewhere.
>
> For Bug
On 07/25/2017 10:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> ** Fixes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/NN; —
> to indicate a fixed bug,
At this point fixes is overloading
> ** Fixes: commit-id (commit message) — to indicate fixing a
> previous commit
This use should be forbidden.
> ** Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/
On 07/26/2017 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> The same applies to #123456 in the summary line, though. I don't see a
> good reason for using a URL after the "Bug:" keyword as long as bare
> numbers are used elsewhere.
For Bug you'd often refer to upstream reports or other distros, so you
need it
On 07/25/2017 01:25 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> There are two main advantages over having the bug number in the summary.
> Space is at a premium in the summary, as Tobias pointed out, and the
>
> Gentoo-Bug: whatever
>
> format is trivially machine-readable, whereas sticking it somewhere else
On 7/25/2017 4:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> There have been multiple attempts at grasping this but none so far
> resulted in something official and indisputable. At the same time, we
> end having to point our users at semi-official guides which change
> in unpredictable ways.
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> On wto, 2017-07-25 at 09:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> There would also be less variation. Bug: 123456 is pretty
>> unambiguous as a reference. When you start having http vs https and
>> maybe a few different ways of creating a URL to a bug it co
On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:46 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky
> > > >
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> > > On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > >
>> > >
On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > > On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage
>>> 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I
On wto, 2017-07-25 at 16:31 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 07/25/2017 04:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > I don't feel I should be obligated by policy to support this use case.
> > One revbump per push seems sufficiently safe for 99.9% of users.
> >
> > If you want to do more revbumps, you
On 07/25/2017 04:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> I don't feel I should be obligated by policy to support this use case.
> One revbump per push seems sufficiently safe for 99.9% of users.
>
> If you want to do more revbumps, you are free to do so.
>
Can I also delete packages and break the tree s
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage
>> 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't think of
>> a single use case where somebody would ac
On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage
> 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't think of
> a single use case where somebody would actually think it sane to
> checkout one commit after another, and
On wto, 2017-07-25 at 09:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > Except that there is no machines using it. In all contexts, using full URL
> > for machine readability is better as it works with all software out of the
> > box.
> >
>
> Unti
On wto, 2017-07-25 at 08:54 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 07/25/2017 04:05, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi, everyone.
> >
> > There have been multiple attempts at grasping this but none so far
> > resulted in something official and indisputable. At the same time, we
> > end having to point our user
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Except that there is no machines using it. In all contexts, using full URL
> for machine readability is better as it works with all software out of the
> box.
>
Until the domain name of the bugzilla server changes/etc. Even if we
migrate
On wto, 2017-07-25 at 08:26 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 07/25/2017 07:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > I have no clue what you mean. I'm just saying that if you push 10
> > changes in 10 commits, you don't have to go straight to -r10 in a
> > single push.
> >
>
> Exactly. Do that inste
On 07/25/2017 04:05, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> There have been multiple attempts at grasping this but none so far
> resulted in something official and indisputable. At the same time, we
> end having to point our users at semi-official guides which change
> in unpredictable ways.
>
>
On 07/25/2017 07:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I have no clue what you mean. I'm just saying that if you push 10
> changes in 10 commits, you don't have to go straight to -r10 in a
> single push.
>
Exactly. Do that instead of hoping that no one checks out your
intermediate commits. There's no l
Dnia 25 lipca 2017 13:25:38 CEST, Michael Orlitzky napisał(a):
>On 07/25/2017 04:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> Here's the current draft:
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Git
>>
>
>It's mostly fine, but there are two changes I disagree with:
>
>> When doing one or more changes
Hi everyone,
> Here's the current draft:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Git
>
> The basic idea is that the GLEP provides basic guidelines for using git,
> and then we write a proper manual on top of it (right now, all the pages
> about it end up as a mix of requirements and a par
Dnia 25 lipca 2017 12:59:21 CEST, Tobias Klausmann
napisał(a):
>Hi!
>
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
>> The summary line is included in the short logs (git log --
>> oneline, gitweb, GitHub, mail subject) and therefore should
>> provide a short yet accurate description of the change.
On 07/25/2017 04:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Here's the current draft:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Git
>
It's mostly fine, but there are two changes I disagree with:
> When doing one or more changes that require a revision bump, bump the
> revision in the commit including
Hi!
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> The summary line is included in the short logs (git log --
> oneline, gitweb, GitHub, mail subject) and therefore should
> provide a short yet accurate description of the change. The summary line
> starts with a logical unit name, followed by a colon
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> What do you think about it? Is there anything else that needs being
> covered?
>
Looks good to me. Thanks for writing it up!
Cheers,
Dirkjan
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:05:06AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Hi, everyone.
There have been multiple attempts at grasping this but none so far
resulted in something official and indisputable. At the same time, we
end having to point our users at semi-official guides which change
in unpredictable
Hi, everyone.
There have been multiple attempts at grasping this but none so far
resulted in something official and indisputable. At the same time, we
end having to point our users at semi-official guides which change
in unpredictable ways.
Here's the current draft:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/U
45 matches
Mail list logo
