On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 11:19:53AM +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> When I first started packaging tea, I considered renaming to to something like
> tea-cli (upstream calls it 'tea', binary is named 'tea'), but it's a bit
> annoying to type, so I went with gtea.
>
> If you think tea-cli would be
On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 01:41:39PM +0530, Ananthu C V wrote:
> It looks that this has been a clear oversight from my side. *I do find this a
> very useful library*
> but as you mentioned, since go team convention does not include packaging
> libaries that are not
> needed by any binaries, there
On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 07:56:23AM +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Hi Nilesh,
> > This is a package with a lot of (important) reverse-dependencies and this
> > is a minor
> > version (assuming they comply with semver.org) bump.
> > Have you verified that it does not cause any regressions in the
Hi Nilesh,
On Sat, 2023-12-23 at 22:21 +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> However it seems to me that you renamed gitea/tea into gtea.
> I would suggest renaming it to gitea-tea or gitea-cli so as to make it clear
> what the source package/binary does. From user pov I find it a little
> unlikely to
Hi Nilesh,
> This is a package with a lot of (important) reverse-dependencies and this is
> a minor
> version (assuming they comply with semver.org) bump.
> Have you verified that it does not cause any regressions in the reverse-deps
> with ratt[1] or ruby-team/meta[2]?
>
> [1]:
On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 10:35:08PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> I finally got some time to look at this. From what I see, this is just a
> library
> package (and no binary) and this seems to be the final package you want to
> get uploaded.
>
> Generally, all go library packages 'are'/'should
