Re: [Scons-dev] Multiple heads in repository

[Bill Deegan]

Anatoly,

I'm not sure which part of "I made a mistake. I fixed it" you
mis-understood.
The multiple heads was caused by having an unfinished commit in one
sandbox. committing in a second, then committing in the first.
It's been resolved.

-Bill


On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:28 AM, anatoly techtonik 
wrote:

> Is it a problem with Mercurial or with Bitbucket? I mean
> could we avoid that if we switch to Git or GitHub?
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Bill Deegan 
> wrote:
> > I made a mistake.
> > Then I fixed it.
> > I had two sandboxes, and one had previous releases changes in it but not
> > submitted. Then I submitted those.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:22 AM, anatoly techtonik  >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Seems ok now. What went wrong?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Bill Deegan  >
> >> wrote:
> >> > should be fixed now.
> >> > Let me know if it's not.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Bill Deegan <
> b...@baddogconsulting.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll take a look.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:31 PM, anatoly techtonik
> >> >> 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Looks like something is wrong with release process.
> >> >>> Bitbucket reports multiple heads in default branch.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/src/tip/LICENSE?at=default=file-view-default
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> anatoly t.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ___
> >> >>> Scons-dev mailing list
> >> >>> Scons-dev@scons.org
> >> >>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Scons-dev mailing list
> >> > Scons-dev@scons.org
> >> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> anatoly t.
> >> ___
> >> Scons-dev mailing list
> >> Scons-dev@scons.org
> >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Scons-dev mailing list
> > Scons-dev@scons.org
> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >
>
>
>
> --
> anatoly t.
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Code of conduct?

[anatoly techtonik]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Bill Deegan  wrote:
> All,
>
> Perhaps it's a good idea to add an official code of conduct for SCons.
> http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-until-morale-improves/
>
> The following site seems to provide a reasonable code.
> http://contributor-covenant.org/
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Bill
> p.s. as an aside I also work on Buildbot and they applied for an open source
> grant through Mozilla's $1M grant program. One of the questions was "Do you
> have a code of conduct".

After Gratipay clash with SJWs I got highly interested in
how mass media manipulation and political technology
works. So, can you explain the problem for you personally
and why you think CoC is a solution to this problem?

Answering to your question, I do not think that CoCs should
be applied just for the sake of having a CoC, so I am -1 for
blindly following the trends. Like using CMake for C projects.

If you want to go deeper into rabbit hole, you may want to
take a look at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/golang-nuts/code/golang-nuts/Nl0UDXmCeVQ/xgNfyBrSAQAJ
but mind you - I didn't read the thread till the end, because
even given that I commented on it, I don't feel like I want to
waste more time on that.

-- 
anatoly t.
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons running on pypy?

[anatoly techtonik]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Bill Deegan  wrote:
> There is an existing framework "timings" though right now the data reporting
> is a bit broken.
> http://buildbot.scons.org/timings
>
> The records have subversion versions and mercurial SHA's as the index and
> are sorted numerically so that needs to be fixed.

Local HG repository maintains incremental versions of revisions too.

Where is the code that fetches revision numbers?
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Multiple heads in repository

[anatoly techtonik]

Is it a problem with Mercurial or with Bitbucket? I mean
could we avoid that if we switch to Git or GitHub?

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Bill Deegan  wrote:
> I made a mistake.
> Then I fixed it.
> I had two sandboxes, and one had previous releases changes in it but not
> submitted. Then I submitted those.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:22 AM, anatoly techtonik 
> wrote:
>>
>> Seems ok now. What went wrong?
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Bill Deegan 
>> wrote:
>> > should be fixed now.
>> > Let me know if it's not.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Bill Deegan 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'll take a look.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:31 PM, anatoly techtonik
>> >> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> Looks like something is wrong with release process.
>> >>> Bitbucket reports multiple heads in default branch.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/src/tip/LICENSE?at=default=file-view-default
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> anatoly t.
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> Scons-dev mailing list
>> >>> Scons-dev@scons.org
>> >>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Scons-dev mailing list
>> > Scons-dev@scons.org
>> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> anatoly t.
>> ___
>> Scons-dev mailing list
>> Scons-dev@scons.org
>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>



-- 
anatoly t.
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Tests for SCons.Debug

[anatoly techtonik]

I see. The problem is that in professional reviews that
I used to, the phrase "Test?" from reviewer without any
other context means that the change needs a test that
is missing.

I also think that the conflict could be resolved earlier if
you let me know that you do not think that this change
should have an obligatory test. That was the point of
conflict.


On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Bill Deegan  wrote:
> Anatoly,
>
> If instead of being argumentative when asked some questions about your pull
> request, you'd simply answered the questions, it's likely we'd long have
> merged your pull request.
> But you prefer to argue.
>
> The process for a pull request is pretty simple.
> If the pull request changes something user visible then CHANGES.txt should
> be updated.
> If the pull request has a functional change, then there should be some
> tests.
>
> If I see either missing, I'll ask in the pull request for what's missing.
> If you think this process is unreasonable, then you should bring it to a
> discussion on the dev mailing list, and not argue about it in a pull
> request.
> If you think that testing the change would be overwhelming difficult or
> ineffective, then the pull requester is free to make that argument.
>
> For this pull request, I asked for tests.
> You responded with some posting  "Unit Testing Is Not a Panacea".
>
> If you'd simply answered the questions asked, you wouldn't have wasted
> anyone's times including your own.
> And if you'll simply answer the questions asked now, in the pull request,
> I'm sure we can get it merged.
>
> But if you continue to be argumentative, I'm likely to spend my time on less
> frustrating (and productive) tasks.
>
> -Bill
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:10 AM, anatoly techtonik 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> We can't make this merged, and I am wasting my emotions on
>> useless discussion instead of doing something useful for SCons.
>> Please tell me if you find it useful to write the test for the following
>> debug function, because I definitely don't see it as such:
>>
>>
>> https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/pull-requests/271/document-sconsdebugcaller_trace-behavior/diff
>>
>> --
>> anatoly t.
>> ___
>> Scons-dev mailing list
>> Scons-dev@scons.org
>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>



-- 
anatoly t.
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Code of conduct?

[William Blevins]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Dirk Bächle  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> On 04.12.2015 18:10, Bill Deegan wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Perhaps it's a good idea to add an official code of conduct for SCons.
>>
>> http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-until-morale-improves/
>>
>> The following site seems to provide a reasonable code.
>> http://contributor-covenant.org/
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
> here's my opinion:
>
> - +1, in general. I don't mind having a CoC, and I fail to see how
> following this "mainstream" (allegedly) pattern could harm the project.
> - For my personal taste, the yahoo example provided by Gary is too long to
> read. Bill's and Russel's texts are shorter, and easier to digest for me as
> non-native speaker.
> - Simply adopting one of those options would be fine with me. @WBlevins: I
> would be opposed to the idea of then adding more regulations on top. It's
> not much more than a badge, that says: "We care." And when the time comes,
> we'll take actions and "care" without having to look up our CoC. We've done
> this successfully in the past...
>

You are somewhat contradicting yourself here. If we show that we care based
on our actions, then why do we need a badge that says we care?  Our actions
should speak louder than a code of conduct.

If we want a code of conduct, then that is fine. I guess my point was...
how does that change how we currently do business? Seems that from your
comments, it changes nothing.  Now we just have some words on a page; not
that I am opposed to this.

My 2 cents,
William


>
> Best regards,
>
> Dirk
>
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Code of conduct?

[Bill Deegan]

An extra 2cents of opinion from me.. ;)

A few things a CoC would help with:
1) It could encourage more participation on the mailing lists. Open source
projects have been notorious for scathing responses to simple questions.
Surprisingly I've been at clients who have used SCons for years and never a
single member of their staff has asked a question on the mailing list.. I
was shocked.
2) If someone finds offense, we now have a place to point them to indicate
what is no OK
3) As Dirk said it gives us a "badge" which can be a checklist item for
many. (The reasonableness of this is of course entirely subjective)
4) On occasion in the past we've had project members who, for lack of a
better words, have lost their way as far as promoting a welcoming
community. It would have been very helpful to have such a CoC to point them
to.

Also, I can't see a downside to having a concise and simple CoC.  Worst
case it improves nothing.

I view a CoC similar to the license chosen by a project. Ideally there'd be
only a few different ones, widely recognized, each perhaps targeting
different types of projects.

-Bill


On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Dirk Bächle  wrote:

> Hi William,
>
> thanks for your comments. See inline replies below...
>
> On 08.12.2015 03:08, William Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Dirk Bächle  tshor...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 04.12.2015 18:10, Bill Deegan wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Perhaps it's a good idea to add an official code of conduct for
>> SCons.
>>
>> http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-until-morale-improves/
>>
>> The following site seems to provide a reasonable code.
>> http://contributor-covenant.org/
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> here's my opinion:
>>
>> - +1, in general. I don't mind having a CoC, and I fail to see how
>> following this "mainstream" (allegedly) pattern could harm
>> the project.
>> - For my personal taste, the yahoo example provided by Gary is too
>> long to read. Bill's and Russel's texts are shorter, and
>> easier to digest for me as non-native speaker.
>> - Simply adopting one of those options would be fine with me.
>> @WBlevins: I would be opposed to the idea of then adding more
>> regulations on top. It's not much more than a badge, that says: "We
>> care." And when the time comes, we'll take actions and
>> "care" without having to look up our CoC. We've done this
>> successfully in the past...
>>
>>
>> You are somewhat contradicting yourself here.
>>
>
> That's possible.
>
> If we show that we care based on our actions, then why do we need a badge
>> that says we
>> care?  Our actions should speak louder than a code of conduct.
>>
>>
> You're right, in principle. But for people that aren't too deeply involved
> with the development and mailing list management, this might not be obvious
> at a first glance. As Bill reported, people start to ask for a CoC when
> looking at a project. Maybe "badge" isn't the right word here, sorry.
>
> If we want a code of conduct, then that is fine. I guess my point was...
>> how does that change how we currently do business? Seems
>> that from your comments, it changes nothing.  Now we just have some words
>> on a page; not that I am opposed to this.
>>
>>
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm after. I don't want the CoC to change how we
> handle business. It should just reinforce that we "take action" if
> required. Having exactly laid out, in case of an "intervention", who is
> then talking to who, in which timeframe,...is already too detailed, for my
> taste.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dirk
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Code of conduct?

[Dirk Bächle]

Hi all,

On 04.12.2015 18:10, Bill Deegan wrote:

All,

Perhaps it's a good idea to add an official code of conduct for SCons.
http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-until-morale-improves/

The following site seems to provide a reasonable code.
http://contributor-covenant.org/

Thoughts?



here's my opinion:

- +1, in general. I don't mind having a CoC, and I fail to see how following this "mainstream" (allegedly) pattern could harm the 
project.
- For my personal taste, the yahoo example provided by Gary is too long to read. Bill's and Russel's texts are shorter, and easier 
to digest for me as non-native speaker.
- Simply adopting one of those options would be fine with me. @WBlevins: I would be opposed to the idea of then adding more 
regulations on top. It's not much more than a badge, that says: "We care." And when the time comes, we'll take actions and "care" 
without having to look up our CoC. We've done this successfully in the past...


Best regards,

Dirk

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Code of conduct?

[Dirk Bächle]

On 07.12.2015 21:35, Alexandre Feblot wrote:

Hi,
Call me the Grinch, but I have the feeling there are 2 kinds of people in the 
world:
* those who behave naturally, who don't need such written CoC because it is 
obvious for them,
* those who would need it but definitely won't read and consider it because 
they think others are stupid / here to serve them / you
name it...

Am I already too desperate about people? :-)


Realistic, Alexandre...you're simply realistic. ;)

But as long as the people from group #1 agree on how to treat misbehaving people (as a subset of group #2) and don't let them be an 
impediment to the progress of the project (and I'm not only talking about source code here) we should still be fine...


Regards,

Dirk

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev