On 09/10/2015 12:39 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
I do wonder if a GitHub hook could be used here. Peter's done some great
things with them in terms of PR review, CLA checking and CI via our
'vulcanbot' build system.
If PRs which contain stacks were monitored by vulcan, it might be able
to pick up
On 09/10/2015 02:18 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
there’s roughly 99% of the repo files we can freely contribute to
Well, yes and no. Not all of us have the requisite C programming skills
to read through, decipher, compile and add to the engine files, which
are the majority of those files.
--
> On 11 Sep 2015, at 2:59 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> You've identified the crux of the problem well: LiveCode was never designed
> with modern FOSS methods in mind. Indeed, it predates most modern FOSS
> workflows we take for granted today. This is one reason LiveCode Builder is
> bein
On 09/10/2015 07:59 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Dirk prive wrote:
> I tend to stay quiet a lot, and prefer being silent on the side
> lines
...but when you finally did write here it was very valuable, so I hope
you'll do so more often.
> but I have noticed that there is a difference between w
Dirk prive wrote:
> I tend to stay quiet a lot, and prefer being silent on the side
> lines
...but when you finally did write here it was very valuable, so I hope
you'll do so more often.
> but I have noticed that there is a difference between what was
> expected from an open sourced LiveCod
I should point out that my post was more a comment on the tone and purpose of
some of the posts on the list rather than attempting to 'shoot the messenger'.
We know there is a problem with binary stackfile contributions... We have a
process to enable such things but the changes have to be presen
I tend to stay quiet a lot, and prefer being silent on the side lines, but
I have noticed that there is a difference between what was expected from an
open sourced LiveCode and what is actually possible with the open source
version of LiveCode.
When people hear "open source", I think it is complete
On 2015-09-10 08:23, Richmond wrote:
Mark, "*flippant*" remarks often seem to hit nerves over at the
mother-ship, lest you haven't noticed.
There's a difference between 'flippant' remarks and...
"Oh look what LiveCode have done now. How stupid is that. They obviously
don't know what there doi
> I will say, though,
> that it's more than a bit frustrating that two and half years after the
> initial open source release there's still no mechanism in place for
> accepting arbitrary IDE stack changes. I would have thought that more
> resources devoted to scriptifying more of the IDE stacks wo
I just remembered why you thought that I had a binary diff in lcvcs.
Way back when I first started looking at it I was thinking of making a
diff driver which you can set in git’s config to generate a text
representation of a binary file just for the diff. This would be
almost perfect for the revie
On 09/10/2015 04:28 AM, Mark Wieder wrote:
On 09/09/2015 12:06 AM, Ali Lloyd wrote:
I'm sorry you felt it was passive-aggressively not accepted. It was
meant
neither as passive-agressively , nor not accepted.
Well, that was intended to be a flippant remark, the the posting
subject should h
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 11:36 am, Monte Goulding
> wrote:
>
>> As an aside, I believe Monte's lcvcs system involves a binary diff mechanism
>> for comparing two stacks.
>
> No there’s no binary diff in lcvcs although it wouldn’t be hard to build
> something that created a repo, export the origi
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 11:23 am, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> As an aside, I believe Monte's lcvcs system involves a binary diff mechanism
> for comparing two stacks.
No there’s no binary diff in lcvcs although it wouldn’t be hard to build
something that created a repo, export the original stack file
On 09/09/2015 12:06 AM, Ali Lloyd wrote:
I'm sorry you felt it was passive-aggressively not accepted. It was meant
neither as passive-agressively , nor not accepted.
Well, that was intended to be a flippant remark, the the posting subject
should have reinforced that.
Seems like I struck a n
On 09/09/2015 01:10 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
I think you should perhaps look at the title of your post for an example
of passive-aggressiveness, rather than Ali's perfectly measured and
appropriate response to your pull request :)
In regards to binary stackfile contributions - I'm sorry b
On 2015-09-09 05:38, Mark Wieder wrote:
4. My pull request was passive-aggressively not accepted because
"there's no way to review the changes".
I think you should perhaps look at the title of your post for an example
of passive-aggressiveness, rather than Ali's perfectly measured and
appropr
I'm sorry you felt it was passive-aggressively not accepted. It was meant
neither as passive-agressively , nor not accepted.
Indeed I have used almost the exact same wording in the past:
https://github.com/runrev/livecode-ide/pull/9
In that case it was a one-line bugfix in a stack that was the s
On 09/08/2015 05:37 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
If we can just get a review process in place for community enhancements
to the IDE to be included in the main install, everyone wins.
And that's really the only unsolved part right now.
1. The script editor fix is now part of the LC8 develop branch
18 matches
Mail list logo
