On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
I want to summarize our IRC conversation on the list.
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:22:44 +0100
> Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>
> > Your ill-placed attempts at being clever are missing the point
v2: Reformat, add a function to return an appropriate read-only checker
for the operating system, so that this can be extended to other OSes.
---
pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 32 +
pym/portage/util/rochecker.py | 81 +++
2 files changed, 1
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:44:15 -0800
Alec Warner wrote:
> Write these checks as functions
Will do in v2, might also look into whether this part of the code can
be refactored already into its own file; having it similar to the
structure we have in Checks.py.
We could then name Checks.py as SyntaxC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:22:44 +0100
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> Your ill-placed attempts at being clever are missing the point.
Why are they missing the point?
> Portage is a mess. We don't need it to become more messy to the point
> of maintainabil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Your ill-placed attempts at being clever are missing the point.
Portage is a mess. We don't need it to become more messy to the point
of maintainability.
Yes, no one fixing bugs (because they are all designing a grand
redesign of Portage) would be b
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:23:26 -0500
"Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)" wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2014 7:08 PM, "Tom Wijsman" wrote:
>
> > PortageInternalVariableAssignment(LineCheck): e += ' on line: %d'
> > return e
> >
> > +class DeprecateG2CONF(LineCheck):
> > + repoman_check_name = 'G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:23:42 +0100
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 16/01/14 22:18, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > My plan is to first work a bit on repoman to get to know it, then
> > when knowing better
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:03:03 +0100
Sebastian Luther wrote:
> Am 16.01.2014 01:07, schrieb Tom Wijsman:
> > ---
> > bin/repoman | 53
> > + man/repoman.1
> > | 4 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/bin/repoman b/bin/re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/01/14 22:18, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> My plan is to first work a bit on repoman to get to know it, then
> when knowing better where everything is work on refactoring it.
That, along with "I'll use this ugly short cut, but only this one
time!", is
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:44:15 -0800
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Tom Wijsman
> wrote:
>
> > ---
> > bin/repoman | 53
> > + man/repoman.1
> > | 4 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+)
> >
> >
> I urge you to not aut
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/01/14 21:07, W. Trevor King wrote:
> $ git format-patch --subject-prefix RFC …
> $ git format-patch --subject-prefix RFC -v2 …
We use send-email. The --subject-prefix option exists there as well.
- --
Alexander
alexan...@plaimi.net
http:/
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 07:54:57PM +, Duncan wrote:
> And one final note: A signed-off-by is a useful indicator of a patch that
> an author considers ready to go, pending review, etc. Lack of that (from
> a seasoned submitter who is familiar with the process) can be an
> indication that the
Here is another one. This is the first patch mentioned here that touches
the dependency resolver. I'd be nice if we had more people with the
ability to work on it. So if you're interested in that, take a look.
Bug 498122 - portage-2.2.8 takes nearly twice as long to calculate
dependencies for worl
Alexander Berntsen posted on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:44:57 +0100 as excerpted:
> On 16/01/14 18:24, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
>> So, how would this work with emails to this list, exactly? An email
>> should be sent any time one of those fields is changed?
> That's not necessary, in my opinion. W
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Alexander Berntsen
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 16/01/14 18:24, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
> > So, how would this work with emails to this list, exactly? An
> > email should be sent any time one of those fields is changed?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/01/14 18:24, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
> So, how would this work with emails to this list, exactly? An
> email should be sent any time one of those fields is changed?
That's not necessary, in my opinion. We already send emails, "looks OK
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/01/14 18:11, W. Trevor King wrote:
> If you add a DCO, then you probably don't need a separate
> Assisted-by. Anyone with enough co-authorship to matter will be
> using a Signed-off-by.
I agree.
- --
Alexander
alexan...@plaimi.net
http://pl
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> We have quite a few dedicated developers now. To ensure that good
> taste is exercised, and that best practices are followed, patches
> should be signed.
>
> My proposals:
> Signed-of
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:05:50PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 16/01/14 17:45, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > I love Signed-off-by, but in all projects where I've seen it used
> > it means the signer is agreeing to some form of a Developer's
> > Certificate of Origin [1]. Without such a DCO,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/01/14 17:41, Alec Warner wrote:
>> I'm confused, are you proposing all patches have all of these
>> fields? Or we should simply cherry-pick the fields we think are
>> useful?
Nearly all patches should have Signed-off-by. The others are situatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/01/14 17:45, W. Trevor King wrote:
> I love Signed-off-by, but in all projects where I've seen it used
> it means the signer is agreeing to some form of a Developer's
> Certificate of Origin [1]. Without such a DCO, I think the usual
> commi
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> We have quite a few dedicated developers now. To ensure that good
> taste is exercised, and that best practices are followed, patches
> should be signed.
>
I'm confused, are you prop
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 02:20:27PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Wrote (a substantial portion of) the patch
> …
> These suggestions all stem from the Linux project.
I love Signed-off-by, but in all projects where I've seen it used it
means the signer is agreeing to some form of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
We have quite a few dedicated developers now. To ensure that good
taste is exercised, and that best practices are followed, patches
should be signed.
My proposals:
Signed-off-by: Wrote (a substantial portion of) the patch
Reviewed-by: Reviewed the p
24 matches
Mail list logo
