* Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Ah, so you want us to use your git repos as patch managers? That
clears up a few things.
I dont want you to use *my* repos. But I'd like to advocate git-based
workflows (eg. downstream branches w/ rebase, etc) instead of loose
patches. And I'm
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
* Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Thats not even necessary. They just should use the infrastructure,
as described in my paper. So everyone can easily set up automatic
notifications, cherry-pick, etc, etc.
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 01:28 -0400, Jacob Godserv wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:13, Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
I've already explained the strategy behind the git repo (and not
doing plaintext patches). Please refer to my paper, and my other
mails posted recently on this list.
* Hans de Graaff gra...@gentoo.org schrieb:
I do understand the response, because part of the strategy mentioned
*is* not to provide plain-text patches, but instead manage them,
possibly jointly with other distributions, in a midstream repository.
Exactly.
The point is: I have to maintain
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
The point is: I have to maintain lots of packages for different distros,
as well as for my own build system. I cannot do this manually for each
single distro, so I prefer doing _generic_ fixes and let the distro
* Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org schrieb:
If I understand your system correctly, you essentially maintain clones
of upstream repos, with all the various distro patches applied on top,
and release tarballs as well.
Yes. And if some upstream does not provide suitable vcs access
(or
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
* Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org schrieb:
I don't see how these various distros can be made to agree with
each other and I certainly can't see them using a common tarball
source.
Thats not even necessary. They just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nirbheek,
thanks for writing such a well thought-out and comprehensive reply to
Enrico. I agree with all the points you raised.
On 11-07-2010 10:28, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
*
* Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Thats not even necessary. They just should use the infrastructure,
as described in my paper. So everyone can easily set up automatic
notifications, cherry-pick, etc, etc.
Why should we?
To make tracking and applying other's changes much
* Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org schrieb:
just because you decided to offer some service, it in no way forces
us to accept it.
No, it does not. I never claimed that.
And so really I dont understand that fundamentalistic kind of
argumentation (which is really near to
* Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Hi,
It's an improved version of procmail, which automatically creates
missing maildir directories.
Stock procmail does this already.
From procmailrc:
If the mailbox is specified to be an MH folder or maildir folder,
procmail will create
* Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org schrieb:
On 07/08/2010 01:56 AM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Hi folks,
YFYI: yet another of my ebuilds kicked-down.
It's an improved version of procmail, which automatically creates
missing maildir directories.
Provide your patches as
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:13, Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
I've already explained the strategy behind the git repo (and not
doing plaintext patches). Please refer to my paper, and my other
mails posted recently on this list.
I'm not quite sure I understand your response here. He
Hi folks,
YFYI: yet another of my ebuilds kicked-down.
It's an improved version of procmail, which automatically creates
missing maildir directories.
cu
- Forwarded message from bugzilla-dae...@gentoo.org -
From: bugzilla-dae...@gentoo.org
Subject: [Bug 322157]
On 07/08/2010 01:56 AM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Hi folks,
YFYI: yet another of my ebuilds kicked-down.
It's an improved version of procmail, which automatically creates
missing maildir directories.
Provide your patches as plain/text attachments like everyone else does,
can't expect
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
YFYI: yet another of my ebuilds kicked-down.
It's an improved version of procmail, which automatically creates
missing maildir directories.
Stock procmail does this already.
From procmailrc:
If the mailbox is specified to be an
16 matches
Mail list logo
