On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:42:33 +0200, Daniel Schoepe
wrote:
...
> - (Re)try some patch/issue management software: Since patches are easily
> forgotten if they just float around in several months old mails, it
> might be prudent to use something to keep track of patches or issues
> these
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:42:33 +0200, Daniel Schoepe dan...@schoepe.org wrote:
...
- (Re)try some patch/issue management software: Since patches are easily
forgotten if they just float around in several months old mails, it
might be prudent to use something to keep track of patches or issues
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:27:53 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> I'm not sure why this is needed, since it seems to me that the whole
> argument for tagging entire threads is that the individual messages are
> *not* distinguishable from the thread.
The problem is that "notmuch search foo and
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:55:09 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:28:45 -0300, David Bremner
> wrote:
> > Maybe you can tag those patches as "notmuch::reviewed" using nmbug? [1]
> > My idea is that
> >
> >notmuch search tag:notmuch::patch and tag:notmuch::reviewed
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:22:58 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> The problem is that "notmuch search foo and not bar" will return all
> threads containing a message satisfying "foo" and a message satisfying
> "not bar". This makes
>
> notmuch search tag:notmuch::patch and not notmuch::pushed
>
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:55:03 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> One thing I think we need to clarify a bit is are we tagging whole
> threads or individual messages in the database. Because of the way
> notmuch search works, I had been tagging whole threads with
> notmuch::pushed (effectively to
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:42:33 +0200, Daniel Schoepe
wrote:
>. There is also a number of patches that have been reviewed by
> long-term contributors, but are then seemingly forgotten (I can find
> some concrete examples of this, if this claim is in doubt).
Maybe you can tag those patches as
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:28:45 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Maybe you can tag those patches as "notmuch::reviewed" using nmbug? [1]
> My idea is that
>
>notmuch search tag:notmuch::patch and tag:notmuch::reviewed
>
> should give a kind of consensus set of "ready to go" patch sets.
Don't
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:28:45 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Maybe you can tag those patches as notmuch::reviewed using nmbug? [1]
My idea is that
notmuch search tag:notmuch::patch and tag:notmuch::reviewed
should give a kind of consensus set of ready to go patch sets.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:55:09 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:28:45 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Maybe you can tag those patches as notmuch::reviewed using nmbug? [1]
My idea is that
notmuch search
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:55:03 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
One thing I think we need to clarify a bit is are we tagging whole
threads or individual messages in the database. Because of the way
notmuch search works, I had been tagging whole threads with
notmuch::pushed
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:27:53 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
I'm not sure why this is needed, since it seems to me that the whole
argument for tagging entire threads is that the individual messages are
*not* distinguishable from the thread.
The problem is that
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:22:58 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
The problem is that notmuch search foo and not bar will return all
threads containing a message satisfying foo and a message satisfying
not bar. This makes
notmuch search tag:notmuch::patch and not
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:42:33 +0200, Daniel Schoepe dan...@schoepe.org wrote:
as many of you have probably noticed, the time after which patches are
reviewed and/or applied is considerably higher lately than it was, for
example, earlier this year. My subjective impression is that there is
also
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:29:37 +, Jani Nikula wrote:
> The good thing is, there are contributions and review. The bad thing is,
> unless you've hung around long enough, you don't know if the reviewers
> are people whose comments you should really pay attention to or not, and
> either way,
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:42:33 +0200, Daniel Schoepe
wrote:
> as many of you have probably noticed, the time after which patches are
> reviewed and/or applied is considerably higher lately than it was, for
> example, earlier this year. My subjective impression is that there is
> also a recent
Hello,
as many of you have probably noticed, the time after which patches are
reviewed and/or applied is considerably higher lately than it was, for
example, earlier this year. My subjective impression is that there is
also a recent increase in contributions and general activity for/about
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:42:33 +0200, Daniel Schoepe
wrote:
> A mechanism to share notmuch tags between users could probably also be
> adapted for this purpose, but this would make it harder for
> non-notmuch users to discuss issues / see existing with the same
> comfort. (Package
Hello,
as many of you have probably noticed, the time after which patches are
reviewed and/or applied is considerably higher lately than it was, for
example, earlier this year. My subjective impression is that there is
also a recent increase in contributions and general activity for/about
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:42:33 +0200, Daniel Schoepe dan...@schoepe.org wrote:
A mechanism to share notmuch tags between users could probably also be
adapted for this purpose, but this would make it harder for
non-notmuch users to discuss issues / see existing with the same
comfort.
20 matches
Mail list logo
