[gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

[gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 776 bytes --]

Hi all,

Just posted six patches. I guess some people are wondering why when 
I'm the one that will apply them to CVS and release anyway. The 
reason is that I'd like a second pair of eyes to look (as I am guilty 
of releasing broken patches) and am thinking that it'll also help 
people interested in learning about how portage works to gain a 
better understanding.

From now on, I'll be posting everything that I am thinking of pushing 
into stable (portage-2.0) and would like it if people could look over 
the patches and respond with a yay or nay.

Those that post patches to bugs.gentoo.org already, it'd be nice if 
you could post them here as well preferably before posting to 
bugs.gentoo.org. Again, for the same reasons above.

-- 
Jason Stubbs

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

[Anthony Gorecki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 782 bytes --]

On Sunday, July 17, 2005 9:06 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> The
> reason is that I'd like a second pair of eyes to look

Personally, I prefer the kernel's method of handling this (which is also what 
I use for my own development). A highly detailed, automated changelog with 
non-binary file differentials is quite useful for people that want to monitor 
the code.


> From now on, I'll be posting everything that I am thinking of pushing
> into stable (portage-2.0) and would like it if people could look over
> the patches and respond with a yay or nay.

In the future, it might be helpful to post those patches in-line, along with 
the message. That way no-one needs to open a separate program to view the 
changes.


-- 
Anthony Gorecki
Ectro-Linux Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 990 bytes --]

On Monday 18 July 2005 14:05, Anthony Gorecki wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2005 9:06 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > The
> > reason is that I'd like a second pair of eyes to look
>
> Personally, I prefer the kernel's method of handling this (which is
> also what I use for my own development). A highly detailed,
> automated changelog with non-binary file differentials is quite
> useful for people that want to monitor the code.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

> > From now on, I'll be posting everything that I am thinking of
> > pushing into stable (portage-2.0) and would like it if people
> > could look over the patches and respond with a yay or nay.
>
> In the future, it might be helpful to post those patches in-line,
> along with the message. That way no-one needs to open a separate
> program to view the changes.

I thought about that, but line-wrapping and python's severe reliance 
on whitespace kind of makes that difficult.

-- 
Jason Stubbs

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

[Brian]

On Mon, 2005-18-07 at 14:28 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 18 July 2005 14:05, Anthony Gorecki wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 17, 2005 9:06 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:

> > In the future, it might be helpful to post those patches in-line,
> > along with the message. That way no-one needs to open a separate
> > program to view the changes.
> 
> I thought about that, but line-wrapping and python's severe reliance 
> on whitespace kind of makes that difficult.
> 

In evolution change the format from normal to preformat to preserve line
lengths and whitespaces.
-- 
Brian <dol-sen@telus.net>

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

[Marius Mauch]

Anthony Gorecki wrote:
> In the future, it might be helpful to post those patches in-line, along with 
> the message. That way no-one needs to open a separate program to view the 
> changes.

There are mailreaders without an internal textviewer? I have a few 
problems believing that. I'd strongly prefer any patches being sent as 
attachments, not only because of formatting issues but also for easier 
handling (copy+paste vs. save-as).

Marius
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

[Paul Varner]

On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> From now on, I'll be posting everything that I am thinking of pushing 
> into stable (portage-2.0) and would like it if people could look over 
> the patches and respond with a yay or nay.

I really like this idea.  As far as the patches go, I didn't see
anything that jumped out at me at first glance.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list