Hi,
Am 16.02.21 um 12:42 schrieb MJ Ray:
> Please consider operating as a Free-Software-supporting association
> outside of FSFE, so the work and members are not all lost.
>
> FSFE does good but is not the Messiah. The basic concept of a
> Foundation (special status for founders and founding
On 15 February 2021 19:38:56 UTC, krey...@rixotstudio.cz wrote:
>Now i lost around 2 months of my life working on this (me and group
>members were working on this before the group was requested) [...],
>but for now i no longer want to be affiliated with FSFE.
Please consider operating as a
On 2/15/21 1:52 PM, Erik Albers wrote:
> On 15.02.21 07:27, krey...@rixotstudio.cz wrote:
>> On 2/14/21 10:35 PM, Reinhard Müller wrote:
>>> Just for the sake of completeness:
>>>
>>> Am 13.02.21 um 05:11 schrieb Jacob Hrbek:
as current coordinator for FSFE-Czechia (currently disputed by Max)
On 15.02.21 07:27, krey...@rixotstudio.cz wrote:
> On 2/14/21 10:35 PM, Reinhard Müller wrote:
>> Just for the sake of completeness:
>>
>> Am 13.02.21 um 05:11 schrieb Jacob Hrbek:
>>> as current coordinator for FSFE-Czechia (currently disputed by Max)
>> AFAICT, the only person who claims that
Trimming to get the context back...
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 05:11:23 CET Jacob Hrbek wrote:
> >> The (F)LOSS ecosystem is currently mostly focusing on quantity over
> >> quality
[...]
> I would also argue that not everyone in (F)LOSS cares about their future
> job in Computer Science to
On 2/14/21 10:35 PM, Reinhard Müller wrote:
> Just for the sake of completeness:
>
> Am 13.02.21 um 05:11 schrieb Jacob Hrbek:
>> as current coordinator for FSFE-Czechia (currently disputed by Max)
> AFAICT, the only person who claims that there is a group "FSFE-Czechia"
> and calling yourself the
Just for the sake of completeness:
Am 13.02.21 um 05:11 schrieb Jacob Hrbek:
> as current coordinator for FSFE-Czechia (currently disputed by Max)
AFAICT, the only person who claims that there is a group "FSFE-Czechia"
and calling yourself the coordinator of that group is you. Please stop
this.
On 2/11/21 11:58 PM, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apart from the principal discussion whether FSFE is well-equipped to define
> "coding standards" without defining a scope for that discussion, I'd like to
> address the introductory paragraph that almost reads as FUD to me:
>
>> The (F)LOSS
On 2/11/21 11:58 PM, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote:
Hi,
Apart from the principal discussion whether FSFE is well-equipped to define
"coding standards" without defining a scope for that discussion, I'd like to
address the introductory paragraph that almost reads as FUD to me:
The (F)LOSS
Hi,
Apart from the principal discussion whether FSFE is well-equipped to define
"coding standards" without defining a scope for that discussion, I'd like to
address the introductory paragraph that almost reads as FUD to me:
> The (F)LOSS ecosystem is currently mostly focusing on quantity over
On 2/10/21 1:10 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> everybody is
> already doing that
I don't believe that more standards are a bad thing.
> Some coding standard make no sense, some are ugly, some are good; you
only need to choose yours -- or be forced by your employer.
Agree that some or even
On 2/10/21 12:39 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
> there's no incentive to even follow a discussion.
Agree that's why i want to define these standards through FSFE in a way
that allows public review and contributions ^-^
--
- Krey
OpenPGP_0x31AE4020956E0A9A.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Hi all,
Am 10.02.21 um 13:10 schrieb Alessandro Rubini:
> The problem your describe is that of bashisms. I agree we should use
> /bin/sh in published scripts (and ensure our own sh is not some
> featureful derivation).
I think one should not publish any shell scripts any more except for
the
Hello.
I don't think FSFE should provide coding standard: everybody is
already doing that. Some coding standard make no sense, some are ugly,
some are good; you only need to choose yours -- or be forced by your
employer.
The problem your describe is that of bashisms. I agree we should use
Hi kreyren,
On Wednesday, 2021-02-10 08:46:15 +, krey...@rixotstudio.cz wrote:
> Justify bad code and elaborate on bad mail user agents.
No. But if these produce text I can't read and cripple "source code" to
be discussed there's no incentive to even follow a discussion.
Eike
--
Hi Valerio,
On Wednesday, 2021-02-10 09:13:35 +0100, Valerio Bellizzomi wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-02-09 at 22:40 +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > Before discussing coding standards we should rule out bad Mail User
> > Agents that produce totally unusable text/plain from text/html in
> > their
> >
On Tue, 2021-02-09 at 22:40 +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday, 2021-02-08 10:56:43 +, Jacob Hrbek wrote:
>
> > Should FSFE provide some kind of platform for community to discuss
> > and propose coding standards?
>
> Before discussing coding standards we should rule out bad Mail
On 2/9/21 10:40 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday, 2021-02-08 10:56:43 +, Jacob Hrbek wrote:
>
>> Should FSFE provide some kind of platform for community to discuss and
>> propose coding standards?
> Before discussing coding standards we should rule out bad Mail User
> Agents that
Hi,
On Monday, 2021-02-08 10:56:43 +, Jacob Hrbek wrote:
> Should FSFE provide some kind of platform for community to discuss and
> propose coding standards?
Before discussing coding standards we should rule out bad Mail User
Agents that produce totally unusable text/plain from text/html
portable
Good code:
#!/bin/sh
# shellcheck shell=sh # Written to comply with IEEE Std 1003.1-2017
[<http://get.posixcertified.ieee.org/>](http://get.posixcertified.ieee.org/)
number=
"5"
case
"
$number
"
in
[0-9]) whatever;
esac
---
Discussion at: https://comm
20 matches
Mail list logo
