On 6 January 2016 at 20:44, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Am 06.01.2016 um 04:32 schrieb Matthew Brush:
>>
>>
>> Agree, I sometimes avoid putting LGTM when I think something is a good
>> idea, because I don't want to give the impression that I have (or even will)
>> reviewed or
Am 06.01.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Matthew Brush:
On 2016-01-06 02:44 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 06.01.2016 um 04:32 schrieb Matthew Brush:
Agree, I sometimes avoid putting LGTM when I think something is a good
idea, because I don't want to give the impression that I have (or even
will)
On 2016-01-06 02:44 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 06.01.2016 um 04:32 schrieb Matthew Brush:
Agree, I sometimes avoid putting LGTM when I think something is a good
idea, because I don't want to give the impression that I have (or even
will) reviewed or tested it. Maybe just a "thumbs up" could
On 2016-01-06 03:47 AM, Lex Trotman wrote:
On 6 January 2016 at 20:44, Thomas Martitz wrote:
[...]
I agree that PRs should be merged earlier, with possible fix-up/follow-up
commits in a new PR. This way changes acutally get the testing they need.
The problem with a
On 06.01.2016 11:00, Frank Lanitz wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> It's been a while since Enrico opened
> https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/769
>
> As we are going straight to March, I'd like to merge it soonish. Any
> comments about this?
For g-p I've just did the step ;)
Cheers,
Frank
Hi folks,
It's been a while since Enrico opened
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/769
As we are going straight to March, I'd like to merge it soonish. Any
comments about this?
Cheers,
Frank
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Am 06.01.2016 um 12:47 schrieb Lex Trotman:
I can't put labels on github. The feature seems to be limited to those with
write access to the repository, so it's useless if we want more reviewers.
Please just add a comment, its actually clearer anyway since we don't
have a well defined semantics
>
> The advantage of labels is that you see them on the PR overview. Whereas
> with comments you have to open every single PR and look for strings that may
> indicate a review result. While labels can be named arbitrarily, in the end
> there's going to be a handful common ones which can be looked
Hi Lex,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:12 AM, Lex Trotman wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> Its a worthwhile thing to talk about. Some specific comments below,
> but first a couple of general ones.
>
> I occasionally talk to some of the Geany devs/contributors in other
> forums and its clear
Hi Matthew,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Matthew Brush wrote:
> On 2016-01-05 12:46 PM, Jiří Techet wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> happy new year and let's celebrate it with something cheerful - zombies!
>>
>>
> Wouldn't they only be zombies if we closed them and they re-opened
On 2016-01-06 12:23 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 06.01.2016 um 21:12 schrieb Jiří Techet:
It's indeed at least interesting to consider, because at least for .h
headers there really is some mixed stuff all over the place -- even,
simply look in Scintilla's source tree.
+1 for
Am 06.01.2016 um 21:12 schrieb Jiří Techet:
It's indeed at least interesting to consider, because at least for .h
headers there really is some mixed stuff all over the place -- even,
simply look in Scintilla's source tree.
+1 for having the headers parsed/lexed by the C++ parser
12 matches
Mail list logo