On 3 October 2011 15:37, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote:
Hi Lex,
Agree with everything you said except I would put #5 and #6 early in the
list since the rest of the things will probably make all the patches need a
lot of work, while they could probably be quite easily applied
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:15:09 +1100
Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Now we have 0.21 released I thought it was worthwhile looking at the
path ahead, and since we have the possibility of some quite
significant changes, maybe starting a plan of attack so that not too
much effort is
[...]
In general I'm fine with this list as goals (discussing details would
be the wrong place here), but would call it 0.9x with this changes on
next release as changes are to big to become a 1.0 directly (to keep
understanding of a 1.0 which have been posted on this list bevor)
Hi Frank,
On 3 October 2011 20:34, Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:04:28 +1100
Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
In general I'm fine with this list as goals (discussing details
would be the wrong place here), but would call it 0.9x with this
changes on next
On 02/10/2011 20:16, Jiří Techet wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 16:34, Nick Treleaven
Now done. This fixes my performance issue with doc/geany.html. Needs
testing though. Regex parsers are:
actionscript
cobol
html
php
R
Link:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:05:45 +1100, Lex wrote:
Heyho,
Big new changes are actually better to go in a new version series.
I'm guessing from your proposal of 0.9 that you want to follow the GTK
method, odd point releases are unstable and even ones stable.
But I don't think that fits with Geany
On 11-10-03 02:34 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
I think the changes you listed, which all make sense taking the general
opinion of mailing list, but they are IMHO to big to put all in one
release and make it stable within the same one.
FWIW, a lot of the stuff in the list is already sitting around
Hi devs,
As you might were aware of and already did see I did the string freeze
for Geany-Plugins 0.21.
To ensure we have the best output I'd like to ask you to don't add new
strings until release if not for a good reasons (e.g. typo, bug fix
etc.) and take your time for checking documentation
Hi all,
Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's
things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on.
Le 05/09/2011 23:05, Jiří Techet a écrit :
[...]
End of the long email finally! I tried to record all what needs to be
done so nothing is forgotten
Le 03/10/2011 06:15, Lex Trotman a écrit :
Hi All,
Now we have 0.21 released I thought it was worthwhile looking at the
path ahead, and since we have the possibility of some quite
significant changes, maybe starting a plan of attack so that not too
much effort is wasted.
The big things I
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time
whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;)
I suggest weekend around 2011-10-29. At least at this weekend I've
nothing planned yet. But
Am Montag, den 03.10.2011, 17:28 +0200 schrieb Colomban Wendling:
Apart that I don't mind, both have the necessary stuff, and Gitorious
is more free as in freedom.
Exactly the reason why I'd personally prefer Gitorous over Github. :)
Regards,
Dominic
--
Dominic Hopf dma...@googlemail.com
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
@all: We will switch to Git, and we need to choose basically between
GitHub and Gitorious.
I'd vote for trying GitHub, just because it has one thing I quite
liked and that Gitorious don't seem to have:
Le 03/10/2011 17:35, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
@all: We will switch to Git, and we need to choose basically between
GitHub and Gitorious.
I'd vote for trying GitHub, just because it has one thing I quite
Le 03/10/2011 17:32, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time
whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;)
I suggest weekend around 2011-10-29. At least
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:35, Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
@all: We will switch to Git, and we need to choose basically between
GitHub and Gitorious.
I'd vote for trying GitHub, just because
Le 03/10/2011 18:20, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:29, Colomban Wendling
lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 03/10/2011 06:15, Lex Trotman a écrit :
[...]
Agreed with the strong branching scheme,
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ feels good to me.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:28, Colomban Wendling
lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Hi all,
Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's
things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on.
Le 05/09/2011 23:05, Jiří Techet a écrit :
[...]
End of the long
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:20:35 +0200
Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote:
1. The split between master and develop is completely unnecessary. I
don't see a reason why there should be a separate branch for releases
(i.e. commits with tags). The post says that a merge to master is a
release by
Le 03/10/2011 18:59, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:28, Colomban Wendling
lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Hi all,
Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's
things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on.
Le 05/09/2011 23:05, Jiří
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:16:09 +0200
Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote:
2. I agree with non-fast-forward merges of feature branches. These
branches however have to be real feature branches where work
concentrates on implementing a single feature (e.g. GTK 3 support).
For instance I have a
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 19:00, Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:20:35 +0200
Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote:
1. The split between master and develop is completely unnecessary. I
don't see a reason why there should be a separate branch for releases
(i.e.
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:27:16 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 03/10/2011 19:20, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:16:09 +0200
Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote:
2. I agree with non-fast-forward merges of feature branches.
These branches
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:24:40 +0200
Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 19:00, Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de
wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:20:35 +0200
Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote:
1. The split between master and develop is completely unnecessary.
I don't
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:59:49 +0200
Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:28, Colomban Wendling
lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Hi all,
Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's
things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:29:25 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 03/10/2011 17:32, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time
On 11-10-03 08:33 AM, Dominic Hopf wrote:
Am Montag, den 03.10.2011, 17:28 +0200 schrieb Colomban Wendling:
Apart that I don't mind, both have the necessary stuff, and Gitorious
is more free as in freedom.
Exactly the reason why I'd personally prefer Gitorous over Github. :)
Do you plan to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Hi all,
Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's
things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on.
Yay, yay, yay.
@all: We will switch to Git, and we need to choose basically between
GitHub and
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:15:23 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Let's wait for Enrico's answer (if he's still on that ML, hehe!) and
Ha, I got a personal reminder (thanks Frank) though I would have read
this anyways. And answered a bit above in this thread.
Regards,
Enrico
--
Get my GPG key from
On 11-10-03 02:02 PM, Enrico Tröger wrote:
The commit mails may be more complicated, at least on Github there
seems nothing ready-to-use AFAIK. They have the HTTP-Push hook which
seems quite appropriate. We just need a script to receive that push and
make it into a mail. However, I'm optimistic
[...]
Yep -- though I think I'm missing something ti your sentence... I don't
get the meaning of and possible changes to process that forces/enables
Apologies for the inelegant language. You said it yourself below :), I
meant things like using branches and committing to develop not master
etc.
[...]
Even in the case of single-commit features? I completely agree with
more-than-one-commit features because otherwise you don't know where
the feature implementation starts and ends but having it for minor
one-commit features seems like overkill to me.
Lets just use commonsense and
On 4 October 2011 03:43, Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:35, Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
@all: We will switch to Git, and we need to choose basically between
On 11-10-03 05:25 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
On 4 October 2011 03:43, Jiří Techettec...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:35, Frank Lanitzfr...@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200
Colomban Wendlinglists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
@all: We will switch to Git,
34 matches
Mail list logo
