Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Features and documentation
Alec Warner wrote: > On 11/27/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in >> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea. >> The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all >> changes requiring said documentation -- part of the source-code patch >> must apply to the Documentation/ directory. Should we require that >> before you commit any changes, you (or someone) write the documentation >> for them and commit it or submit a patch at the same time? >> >> To sum up: No undocumented changes. > > No, because this is not a realistic requirement, it's an ideal case. > People will just commit changes without documentation anyway. What if Donnie had used s/changes/new features/ ? Then his proposal makes much more sense. For bugfix, we already have ChangeLogs. My 2 euro ¢ Cheers, Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Features and documentation
On 11/27/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in > metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea. > The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all > changes requiring said documentation -- part of the source-code patch > must apply to the Documentation/ directory. Should we require that > before you commit any changes, you (or someone) write the documentation > for them and commit it or submit a patch at the same time? > > To sum up: No undocumented changes. No, because this is not a realistic requirement, it's an ideal case. People will just commit changes without documentation anyway. > > Discuss. > > Thanks, > Donnie > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes to rox.eclass
Jim Ramsay kirjoitti: > I know I'm the only one who uses this, but thought it would be prudent > to post this here before I actually commit it, in case I'm doing > something obviously wrong, or if you bash maniacs out there can think > of better ways to do things I've done here. > > This is mostly a code reorg from previous feature writes, and I've > double-checked my quoting. The only new features are with regards to > the APPMIME variable. > Next time could you please use a text/plain diff as the attachment. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Features and documentation
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:36:17 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19:25 Tue 27 Nov , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:21:44 -0800 > > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To sum up: No undocumented changes. > > > > Define 'change'. > > That was the summary, so you should be able to get the information > you want from the paragraph above it. But I can't, hence why I asked. You haven't at any point said what you mean by 'change'. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Features and documentation
On 19:25 Tue 27 Nov , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:21:44 -0800 > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To sum up: No undocumented changes. > > Define 'change'. That was the summary, so you should be able to get the information you want from the paragraph above it. Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Features and documentation
Donnie Berkholz wrote: > How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in > metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea. > The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all > changes requiring said documentation -- part of the source-code patch > must apply to the Documentation/ directory. Should we require that > before you commit any changes, you (or someone) write the documentation > for them and commit it or submit a patch at the same time? > > To sum up: No undocumented changes. > > Discuss. > > Thanks, > Donnie > I agree that documentation should be provided before anything is committed. I'd also like to note that documentation was provided with the USE flag descriptions as well as an example metadata.xml with all the new features being used was provided. -- Doug Klima Gentoo Developer -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Features and documentation
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:21:44 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To sum up: No undocumented changes. Define 'change'. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Features and documentation
How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea. The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all changes requiring said documentation -- part of the source-code patch must apply to the Documentation/ directory. Should we require that before you commit any changes, you (or someone) write the documentation for them and commit it or submit a patch at the same time? To sum up: No undocumented changes. Discuss. Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: maintainer-wanted bugcount
Markus Ullmann wrote: K, to sum it up then, everything stays like it is atm. I think that makes sense. Yes, it's unrealistic for us to be able to handle all of them, but I think that's a perfectly reasonable situation. It's common for open source projects to have an excess of feature requests; it's a natural imbalance given that there are significantly more users than developers in almost all cases. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: net-mail/mailman-2.1.9-r2: Request for testing
René 'Necoro' Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:55:08 +0100: > Depends on what PORTAGE_COMPRESS is set to ;) (Don't know WHERE this is > actually being set - but different systems seem to have different values > here). That's a newer portage make.conf variable; see the manpage. Apparently newer versions default to bz2, while older versions (before the setting was exposed as a variable) may have defaulted to gz. However, the user can now set any sort of exotic compression type he likes. (zip, rar, 7zip, zoo, anyone?) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
