On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:52:21PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> "Thomas Adam" wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> > > I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no
> > > questions appears anymore ;)
> > >
> > > I can add it to the docu
"Thomas Adam" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> > I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no
> > questions appears anymore ;)
> >
> > I can add it to the document, no prob.
>
> I've added a few words about this, without making thi
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no
> questions appears anymore ;)
>
> I can add it to the document, no prob.
I've added a few words about this, without making this a rule, which
hopefully people wil
"Thomas Adam" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> > One point:
> > Should we use for development branches a special nomination like
> > feature_xy, fix_abc?
> > Or only a README which describes the feature/fix?
>
> I don't think that's necessary. Typically, y
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> One point:
> Should we use for development branches a special nomination like feature_xy,
> fix_abc?
> Or only a README which describes the feature/fix?
I don't think that's necessary. Typically, you have this pattern:
initials/
"Thomas Adam" wrote:
> I was thinking along the lines of this diff:
>
> https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/f81b2f4d7412813f12b235d8f1914409da0bbae9.patch
>
> Which you can view rendered here:
>
> https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/git-docs/docs/DEVELOPERS.md
>
> What do others think?
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Viktor Griph wrote:
> Cool. Would it be possible to stick some unit test framework to it as well?
Sorry, Viktor, I missed this point the last time round. Yes, that's
possible, and depending on how we decide to write unit tests, it can
just hook into the T
Den 24 mar 2016 5:22 em skrev "Thomas Adam" :
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've to document this formally, but I wanted to let you know of a few
options
> I've enabled for the "master" branch on the main fvwm Git repository.
>
> All pushes by default (across all branches) will now have Travis CI ran
> against t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Viktor Griph wrote:
> Is our strategy for handling of branches and pull requests summarized
> anywhere?
I'm working on that. Will put that out for tenure later on today.
-- Thomas Adam
Hi all,
I've to document this formally, but I wanted to let you know of a few options
I've enabled for the "master" branch on the main fvwm Git repository.
All pushes by default (across all branches) will now have Travis CI ran
against them. Travis is a Continuous Integration tool[1] which allow
10 matches
Mail list logo