Re: GNOME Games source name

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:50:04AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I talked with Adrien and he doesn't want to change the name... so GNOME > Games it will continue to be. So there's probably not much point to > continued discussion here. > > I realize this is inconvenient for Debian and other

Re: Enabling builddir != srcdir by default in jhbuild

On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 12:31 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > What's the proper fix for this then? > > In general, everything that modifies the Git repository or the > autotools files, like `git submodule update` or `gtkdocize` or > `intltoolize` will need to be called inside the source

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 07:05 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Since this app has not yet been packaged by distros, I think now > would > be a great time to change the name (GNOME Video Games is my > preference). A name change would be painful down the road, but if we > do > it now it's not so bad.

Re: Continuous Builds in GNOME

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016, 01:42 Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > Right now, the easiest and cheapest option would literally be moving > the GNOME development infrastructure wholesale to GitHub, put > everything under Travis CI, and keep a separate machine somewhere that > cranks out GNOME

Re: Continuous Builds in GNOME

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:42 AM Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > Hi Sri; > > On 3 June 2016 at 02:53, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > I found this discussion really fascinating and so I wanted to continue > it, > > separately from Emmanuele's thread so that issue is

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 15:53 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Yet this is what you're doing. If you want an application to be > > renamed, you'd better make sure that you can actually come up with > > a > > good name, and argue why

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Yet this is what you're doing. If you want an application to be > renamed, you'd better make sure that you can actually come up with a > good name, and argue why it is an insurmountable problem to call the > package

Re: Continuous Builds in GNOME

On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 09:42 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > Even if we magically got the resources (build machines, at least one > person working on the infrastructure side, volunteer work to improve > the tooling), the attitude of "my module is my fiefdom, if a build > breaks *you* fix it" has to

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 20:43 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > If you want an application to be > > renamed, you'd better make sure that you can actually come up with > > a > > good name, and argue why it is an insurmountable

Re: Enabling builddir != srcdir by default in jhbuild

Hi Bastien; On 3 June 2016 at 12:11, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 23:50 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: >> [ Picking this up again ] >> >> As a last resource, we can mark modules that do not support non- >> srcdir >> builds in the various modulesets, but I'd

Re: Enabling builddir != srcdir by default in jhbuild

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 23:50 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > [ Picking this up again ] > > I've been spending the last couple of days fixing modules on > git.gnome.org (you may have noticed a commit or two from me on your > modules fixing builddir != srcdir issues); submitting bugs/patches to >

Re: Continuous Builds in GNOME

Hi Emanuelle, I just wanted to pitch into this discussion and say thanks to you (and everyone else working on this) for putting all the effort into fixing build issues and improving continuous integration. I have been a developer for different gnome components for a while, but I am not such

Re: Continuous Builds in GNOME

Hi Sri; On 3 June 2016 at 02:53, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > I found this discussion really fascinating and so I wanted to continue it, > separately from Emmanuele's thread so that issue is resolved without > bifurcating the discussion. > > My thoughts are that we really