On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:55:04 +0100 Jonathan Aquilina
said:
> When i say lose i mean more along the lines of ending up being missed or
> overlooked.
https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/arcanist/
linked from:
http://www.enlightenment.org/p.php?p=contribute
and when they have been submitted th
On 06/11/13 16:50, Alex-P. Natsios wrote:
> Yet, not everyone does that, there have been a few patches that landed on
> the ML... either due to ignorance about phab or because people couldn't set
> it up correctly and decided to drop them here instead.
Yeah, but the same would happen with gerrit..
Yet, not everyone does that, there have been a few patches that landed on
the ML... either due to ignorance about phab or because people couldn't set
it up correctly and decided to drop them here instead.
--
November Webina
On 06/11/13 15:55, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> When i say lose i mean more along the lines of ending up being missed or
> overlooked.
Yes, I understand that's what you meant by lose.
Have you even looked at phabricator? Our wiki? Our contribute page?
If you send patches to phabricator they won't b
When i say lose i mean more along the lines of ending up being missed or
overlooked.
On Wednesday 06 November 2013 15:41:07 Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 06/11/13 15:35, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> > Dont you run the risk of patches falling through the cracks in terms of
> > patches recieved on the mail
On 06/11/13 15:35, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Dont you run the risk of patches falling through the cracks in terms of
> patches recieved on the mailing list?
We should at some point use patchwork or whatever. But no, there's no
risk in that, because the official method of sending patches is
phab
Dont you run the risk of patches falling through the cracks in terms of
patches recieved on the mailing list?
On Wednesday 06 November 2013 15:26:57 Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 06/11/13 15:15, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> > Why was gerrit rejected?
>
> Mainly because people didn't want to go through a
On 06/11/13 15:15, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Why was gerrit rejected?
Mainly because people didn't want to go through a review system and
because we don't have the man-power to review commits. Also, many of us
have their own area of expertise so approving commits will mostly be a
waste of time
Why was gerrit rejected?
On Wednesday 06 November 2013 15:01:56 Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 06/11/13 14:59, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> > Hey guys
> >
> > I am seeing alot of things about commiting code to the code base etc,
> >
> > Has gerrit code review been considered? As well as build bots
>
> I
On 06/11/13 14:59, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Hey guys
>
> I am seeing alot of things about commiting code to the code base etc,
>
> Has gerrit code review been considered? As well as build bots
It has been considered and rejected.
Build bots: we have jenkins, build.enlightenment.org
--
Tom.
--
Hey guys
I am seeing alot of things about commiting code to the code base etc,
Has gerrit code review been considered? As well as build bots
--
November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
Accelerate application per
11 matches
Mail list logo
