On Sun 21 Nov 2010 at 20:09:23 PST Beech Rintoul wrote:
That is correct, although it is possible to use a unified diff with the "-N"
flag against a non existent source. The problem is too many contributors send
in update pr's in shar format which are a real PITA to deal with from our end.
You m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/21/2010 10:26 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Sun 21 Nov 2010 at 20:09:23 PST Beech Rintoul wrote:
>>
>> That is correct, although it is possible to use a unified diff
>> with the "-N" flag against a non existent source. The problem is
>> too many
"Janky Jay, III" writes:
> On 11/21/2010 10:26 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
>> On Sun 21 Nov 2010 at 20:09:23 PST Beech Rintoul wrote:
>>>
>>> That is correct, although it is possible to use a unified diff
>>> with the "-N" flag against a non existent source. The problem is
>>> too many contributors
On Sun 21 Nov 2010 at 22:01:28 PST Janky Jay, III wrote:
Almost anyone who is an only semi-serious port maintainer (meaning
they only have a select few number of ports to maintain and are only
trying to contribute/participate) knows that maybe this issue is due
to the porter's handbook. Speci
On Sunday 21 November 2010 20:26:49 Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Sun 21 Nov 2010 at 20:09:23 PST Beech Rintoul wrote:
> >That is correct, although it is possible to use a unified diff with the
> >"-N" flag against a non existent source. The problem is too many
> >contributors send in update pr's in s
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:22:57 -0800
Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Sun 21 Nov 2010 at 22:01:28 PST Janky Jay, III wrote:
> >
> >Almost anyone who is an only semi-serious port maintainer
> > (meaning
> >they only have a select few number of ports to maintain and are only
> >trying to contribute/par
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:19:05 +
RW wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:22:57 -0800
> Charlie Kester wrote:
>
> > On Sun 21 Nov 2010 at 22:01:28 PST Janky Jay, III wrote:
> > >
> > >Almost anyone who is an only semi-serious port maintainer
> > > (meaning
> > >they only have a select few numbe
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 09:26:49PM -0800, Charlie Kester wrote:
> E.g., why not send an email requesting resubmission in the proper
> format?
A lot of committers do try to do just that. There is no automated
process, however.
> Many of the of oldest unassigned but still-open PR's show no evidenc
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:19 PM, RW wrote:
>
> Actually it does discuss the wording of the synopsis for both new and
> updated ports which gives the impression that that that section covers
> both.
>
> Furthermore the update chapter is at the opposite end of the
> index under the single mis
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 07:58:56PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:19 PM, RW wrote:
> >
> > Actually it does discuss the wording of the synopsis for both new and
> > updated ports which gives the impression that that that section covers
> > both.
> >
> > Furthermore th
On Mon 22 Nov 2010 at 11:28:36 PST Greg Byshenk wrote:
I'm not a porter, but how about the below...?
HTH
-greg
--- begin diff ---
--- porting-submitting.html 2007-09-11 01:11:07.0 +0200
+++ porting-submitting.html 2010-11-22 20:14:54.0 +0100
@@ -69,6 +69,14 @@
+
+
+N
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:58:56 +0100
Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:19 PM, RW
> wrote:
>
> > IMO chapter 10 should either be 3.7 or be merged into 3.6. If
> > anything deserves to be under "Quick Porting" it's this.
> >
>
> So then we will see your PR for an update of tha
On Monday 22 November 2010 13:15:18 RW wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:58:56 +0100
>
> Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:19 PM, RW
> >
> > wrote:
>
> If someone that's never submitted a document patch before, submits one
> that involves moving a chapter in the porter's han
I put together this patch. I hope this is sufficient.
Thanks!
Jason
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 07:58:56PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen thus spake:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:19 PM, RW wrote:
Actually it does discuss the wording of the synopsis for both new and
updated ports which gives the imp
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Mon 22 Nov 2010 at 11:28:36 PST Greg Byshenk wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not a porter, but how about the below...?
>> HTH
>> -greg
>>
>> --- begin diff ---
>>
>> --- porting-submitting.html 2007-09-11 01:11:07.0 +0200
>> +++ porting-s
Here is a patch to take care of removing of "updating".
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:08:02PM -0800, Charlie Kester thus spake:
On Mon 22 Nov 2010 at 11:28:36 PST Greg Byshenk wrote:
I'm not a porter, but how about the below...?
HTH
-greg
--- begin diff ---
--- porting-submitting.html 2007-
16 matches
Mail list logo
