Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

2016-01-21 Thread Emmanuele Bassi
Hi; On 21 January 2016 at 15:22, SAHIL SAREEN wrote: > I feel we should spend time building a simple "build sheriff" (maybe an > extension of https://build.gnome.org) that auto-files a "cri" bug for the > module whose build failed. This should make sure that it isn't

Build sheriffs for GNOME

2016-01-21 Thread Emmanuele Bassi
Hi all; Many of you know about GNOME Continuous, and build.gnome.org — and for those who don't, here's two handy links: - https://build.gnome.org - https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeContinuous In short: we're currently building the core GNOME and some applications every time something

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

2016-01-21 Thread SAHIL SAREEN
Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME SAHIL SAREEN Reply| To: Emmanuele Bassi ; Thu 1/21/2016 8:47 PM Hey ebassi I feel we should spend time building a simple "build sheriff" (maybe an extension of https://build.gnome.org) that auto-files a "cri" bug for the module whose build failed.

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

2016-01-21 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 12:19 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Thank you Emmanuele, this will really help with keeping GNOME > building. > I strongly support this change. Also, to clarify, this surely means that maintainers are responsible for updating the Continuous manifest in addition to

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

2016-01-21 Thread Michael Catanzaro
Thank you Emmanuele, this will really help with keeping GNOME building. I strongly support this change. On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 14:54 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > This effort led to various benefits, including JHBuild not constantly > being in a broken state, and most projects hosted on

libgnomekbd development

2016-01-21 Thread Antonio Ospite
Hi, I have several patches for libgnomekbd[1], I submitted some of them to bugzilla[2,3,4] but nobody seems to have commented on them in more than a year. How do I have to proceed to have them reviewed and possibly merged? Sergey, do you still maintain libgnomekbd? Thanks, Antonio [1]

Re: libgnomekbd development

2016-01-21 Thread Michael Catanzaro
Is anybody interested in taking over maintainership of libgnomekbd? To my knowledge, it's only used by gnome-shell and gnome-control-center to display the keyboard layout dialog, so it should be very low- maintenance. Thanks, Michael ___

GNOME 3.19.4 released

2016-01-21 Thread Javier Jardón
Hi!, GNOME 3.19.4 is out. This is a development snapshot, so use it with caution. To compile GNOME 3.19.4, you can use the jhbuild [1] modulesets [2] (which use the exact tarball versions from the official release). You can also test the latest code using the vm images [3] that are produced by

Re: RFC: documentation browser

2016-01-21 Thread philip . chimento
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:37 PM wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:31 AM Giovanni Campagna < > scampa.giova...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [...] >> > Also, it seems the parameter naming and listing is wrong/confusing for >> out parameters and for arrays (I haven't checked

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

2016-01-21 Thread Tristan Van Berkom
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 14:54 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: [...] > This is not enough, and it does not raise the bar in keeping GNOME in > a buildable state. It actually lowers it a fair , to the effective > point that *nobody* cares about Continuous builds. > > I want this to change. I want to be

Re: libgnomekbd development

2016-01-21 Thread Sergey Udaltsov
Hello Antonio No actually I do not maintain it, not touching any GNOME code for a while. Regards Sergey On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Antonio Ospite wrote: > Hi, > > I have several patches for libgnomekbd[1], I submitted some of them to > bugzilla[2,3,4] but nobody seems to