Re: gnu-patches back log

2017-03-07 13:09 GMT+01:00 Ricardo Wurmus : > > Catonano writes: > > > Wrapping up, I think 2 interesting ideas popped up in this thread > > > > One is the automation of building of new packages patches > > I wouldn’t know how to set this up. Hydra isn’t

Re: gnu-patches back log

Hi Hartmut, Hartmut Goebel skribis: > Am 06.03.2017 um 17:14 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: >> add Reviewed-by tags > > Can git add this automatically? Otherwise it would mean additional > manual work. Actually Git already distinguishes between committer and author, so

Re: gnu-patches back log

Catonano writes: > Wrapping up, I think 2 interesting ideas popped up in this thread > > One is the automation of building of new packages patches I wouldn’t know how to set this up. Hydra isn’t powerful enough for our *current* purposes, so I wouldn’t want to increase the

Re: gnu-patches back log

Am 06.03.2017 um 17:14 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: > add Reviewed-by tags Can git add this automatically? Otherwise it would mean additional manual work. -- Regards Hartmut Goebel | Hartmut Goebel | h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com | | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which

Re: gnu-patches back log

Hi Pjotr! Pjotr Prins skribis: > Now we have debbugs we can see there is a building back-log: > > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?package=guix-patches;max-bugs=100;base-order=1;bug-rev=1 > > A patch like this one > >

Re: gnu-patches back log

2017-03-01 17:07 GMT+01:00 Pjotr Prins : > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:51:14AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 02:45:51PM +, Pjotr Prins wrote: > > > OK. I was not planning to badger ;). Sometimes describing a problem > > > can be valuable.

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:51:14AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 02:45:51PM +, Pjotr Prins wrote: > > OK. I was not planning to badger ;). Sometimes describing a problem > > can be valuable. Feel free to ignore. We all have different itches > > to scratch. I'll shut

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 02:45:51PM +, Pjotr Prins wrote: > OK. I was not planning to badger ;). Sometimes describing a problem > can be valuable. Feel free to ignore. We all have different itches > to scratch. I'll shut up again. Okay, I really don't want you to shut up. As you say, we all

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:48:55PM +0100, Thomas Danckaert wrote: > > This is the first thing I am trying :). The main difference with the > > existing approach is that I want to have more engagement from fresh > > contributors who can also peer review. Review is an excellent way of > > learning.

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 08:14:48AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > Try running `git log --format=full` to see who is actually pushing > commits. It's a significantly more diverse group than just Ricardo and > Ludo. Sure, I know that. > I'm sure that everyone would like for patches to be handled

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:17:15AM +, Pjotr Prins wrote: > I am not asking you in particular, but everyone in general, if you > feel like coaching one submission per week. That would take a load > of work away from Ricardo and Ludo and improve speed dramatically. Try running `git log

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 08:17:39AM +, Pjotr Prins wrote: I would like to ask the Guix mailing list members whether it is *acceptable* that a good looking patch has not been touched for two weeks. Like this one https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25725

Re: gnu-patches back log

On 17-03-01 11:17:15, Pjotr Prins wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:42:29AM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: > > On Wed 01 Mar 2017 09:17, Pjotr Prins writes: > > > > > I would like to ask the Guix mailing list members whether it is > > > *acceptable* that a good looking

Re: gnu-patches back log

From: Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> Subject: Re: gnu-patches back log Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:17:15 + This is the first thing I am trying :). The main difference with the existing approach is that I want to have more engagement from fresh contributors who can also peer

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:42:29AM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Wed 01 Mar 2017 09:17, Pjotr Prins writes: > > > I would like to ask the Guix mailing list members whether it is > > *acceptable* that a good looking patch has not been touched for two > > weeks. Like

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed 01 Mar 2017 09:17, Pjotr Prins writes: > I would like to ask the Guix mailing list members whether it is > *acceptable* that a good looking patch has not been touched for two > weeks. Like this one > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25725 FWIW

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:16:25AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > > Would it be an idea to send out weekly E-mails with patches that had > > no attention to a select list of reviewers? Or maybe to the ML as a > > whole? Basically it would read: > > As long as the list of reviewers volunteered for

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 06:25:31AM +, Pjotr Prins wrote: > Now we have debbugs we can see there is a building back-log: > > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?package=guix-patches;max-bugs=100;base-order=1;bug-rev=1 > > A patch like this one > >

Re: gnu-patches back log

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:14:52PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote: > Am 28.02.2017 um 07:25 schrieb Pjotr Prins: > > Would it be an idea to send out weekly E-mails with patches that had > > no attention to a select list of reviewers? Or maybe to the ML as a > > whole? Basically it would read: > >

Re: gnu-patches back log

Am 28.02.2017 um 07:25 schrieb Pjotr Prins: > Would it be an idea to send out weekly E-mails with patches that had > no attention to a select list of reviewers? Or maybe to the ML as a > whole? Basically it would read: This might be a good idea. Please mind adding links to that mail so one can