Bug#489722: git patches to migrate to PEP 8 conformant names
tags 489722 + pending
thanks
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 10:28:40PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:19:45AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Once that is ready, I'll be more than happy to review, apply, and
> > > upload.
> > I hope you can reconsider based on the above; I don't see how to
> > improve my patches while still using Git.
>
> Zack, could we get that done? ;-)
Hi Philipp, thanks for the ping!
I've just applied Ben's patches (thanks!), and pushed the changes.
If nobody objects I think we can proceed with an upload ...
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#489722: git patches to migrate to PEP 8 conformant names
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:19:45AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Once that is ready, I'll be more than happy to review, apply, and > > upload. > I hope you can reconsider based on the above; I don't see how to > improve my patches while still using Git. Zack, could we get that done? ;-) Kind regards, Phliipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#489722: git patches to migrate to PEP 8 conformant names
On 11-Sep-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Thanks a lot: I've investigated with the other maintainers and no > voices against your request were raised, we will be happy to > integrate your patch (and thanks for the deprecation module, which > will probably be useful also for other stuff in the future). Great news, thank you. > Still, your patch at the moment is a bit messy and suboptimal to review. > Take for example the patch about the example > examples/debtags/tagsByRelevance; your patch first remove all the code > and then read it, probably using the right calls. As far as I can tell, that's an artefact of the way Git handles file metadata: it can't tell the difference between "file X was renamed to file Y and had some changes" and "file X lost all 100 lines and file Y gained all 100 very similar lines". I may be wrong on this (I'm not an expert at using Git) but Git, as far as I can tell, is just representing the change as best it can. You'll notice that Git has produced more readable output for the other method-renaming patch (the one that changes many more files). > Can you please: > - provide 2 patches instead of 3: one for the deprecation module, the > other (instead of 2) for all the method renamings. In fact the patch to 'examples/debtags/tagsbyrelevance' is only separate because I missed it on the first pass. Combining the two patches won't help the readability, as it will still contain a whole lot of removed lines in one file and a whole lot of added lines in the other. I was a little dismayed to see that the project decided to move away from Bazaar, which handles this case more elegantly :-/ > - avoid stuff like the example above and keep your patches minimal. > > Once that is ready, I'll be more than happy to review, apply, and > upload. I hope you can reconsider based on the above; I don't see how to improve my patches while still using Git. -- \ “Holy rising hemlines, Batman!” —Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#489722: git patches to migrate to PEP 8 conformant names
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:56:31PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > I have updated the patch for this bug report, so that it applies > against the current 'git' repository > , > revision 0dd8cdb639253581f97dcd74071eef719c1247d8. > > The patches were generated with 'git format-patch', they should apply > cleanly against the repository. Thanks a lot: I've investigated with the other maintainers and no voices against your request were raised, we will be happy to integrate your patch (and thanks for the deprecation module, which will probably be useful also for other stuff in the future). Still, your patch at the moment is a bit messy and suboptimal to review. Take for example the patch about the example examples/debtags/tagsByRelevance; your patch first remove all the code and then read it, probably using the right calls. Can you please: - provide 2 patches instead of 3: one for the deprecation module, the other (instead of 2) for all the method renamings. - avoid stuff like the example above and keep your patches minimal. Once that is ready, I'll be more than happy to review, apply, and upload. Thanks in advance! Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the XML stuff is so ... simplistic -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
