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 powerful enough for our
> *current* purpo
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
you’re probably right.
Based o
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 load at this
point.
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 y
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
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25725
>
> has be
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. Feel free to ignore. We all h
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 up
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
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. H
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 with
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 --format=
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
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 patch has not been touched for
From: Pjotr Prins
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 review. Review is an excellent way of
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 this one
> >
> > https://debb
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 -- I accept this situation.
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 th
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
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugr
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:
>
> Thi
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 ea
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
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25725
has been two weeks without comment. I think we should no
21 matches
Mail list logo