On Thursday 28 August 2008 14:32:27 Darragh Bailey wrote:
>
> If it could handle working with GPG signatures, would that be a viable
> way to determine if the new patch is from the same author? I'm sure
> that most people could setup their mail clients to automatically sign
> their emails.
The pro
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:44:05AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> It would be hard to recognize later versions of the same patch,
> even with the '(try 2)' convention, since they often get split
> and munged while being beaten into submission.
> So Patchwatcher would have to have a way for developers to
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Next to checking wine-devel, we could also check wine-cvs and just do a
> simple compare of everything in the queue to the ones marked as committed in
> wine-cvs.
Or simply check the git log, which we have handy.
A simple match on subject lines would probab
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> "James Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Would it be difficult though to once a day do a git fetch and attempt
>>> to re-apply all the known (good) patches to see if they've fail wi
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> to simply mark any individual patch as 'already
>> applied to the tree' vs not applied isn't so difficult.
>
> Patches gratefully accepted. The file to
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> to simply mark any individual patch as 'already
> applied to the tree' vs not applied isn't so difficult.
Patches gratefully accepted. The file to change is
http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/source/browse/trunk/patchwatcher/d
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think it would be quite useful. For instance it would allow sending a
>> nice reminder to the author to rethink/resend their patch if it hasn'
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it would be quite useful. For instance it would allow sending a
> nice reminder to the author to rethink/resend their patch if it hasn't
> been applied after a week or so. It would also enable me (and other
> r
"James Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Would it be difficult though to once a day do a git fetch and attempt
>> to re-apply all the known (good) patches to see if they've fail with
>> patch errors (==been com
2008/8/27 Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I may be remembering incorrectly, but If i recall wasn't there
> developer requests for some sort of tracking mechanism to see if their
> own patches had been committed? I recall some complicated discussion
> about using different hashes and such a
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:10 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> question still stands. How is that useful at all, especially for a
>> developer?
>
> It's of limited use, IMHO. If you care about keeping patches
>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:10 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> question still stands. How is that useful at all, especially for a
> developer?
It's of limited use, IMHO. If you care about keeping patches
up to date, you'll just use git or quilt or something.
If you want to know when
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I may be remembering incorrectly, but If i recall wasn't there
> developer requests for some sort of tracking mechanism to see if their
> own patches had been committed? I recall some complicated discussion
> about us
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:02 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Would it be difficult though to once a day do a git fetch and attempt
>> to re-apply all the known (good) patches to see if they've fail wit
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Would it be difficult though to once a day do a git fetch and attempt
> to re-apply all the known (good) patches to see if they've fail with
> patch errors (==been committed)? That seems like it might be useful.
>
T
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:39 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is it possible to add column to the patchwatcher, whether the patch
>> has been rejected/accepted/pending into git.
>>
>
> This is
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to add column to the patchwatcher, whether the patch
> has been rejected/accepted/pending into git.
>
This is extending patchwatcher too far, and it puts an unnecessary
burden on Alexandre to re
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to add column to the patchwatcher, whether the patch
> has been rejected/accepted/pending into git.
Maybe. I could probably recognize cases like
http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/358.log
and
Hi,
Is it possible to add column to the patchwatcher, whether the patch
has been rejected/accepted/pending into git.
Also please skip the mail entries if they do have "Re:" in the subject
and do not have any patch.
Mark the corresponding patch to rejected/needs more work.
Thanks,
VJ
-
19 matches
Mail list logo
