Ludovic Courtès (2015-07-18 00:24 +0300) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-07-16 22:08 +0300) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Since we have our own conventions that are not necessarily coincide with
>> the upstream conventions, I believe it would be better to prefer our
>> synopses/des
Alex Kost skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès (2015-07-16 22:08 +0300) wrote:
[...]
>> The problem is that this rule sometimes conflicts with the
>> ‘gnu-description’ checker (aka. ‘make sync-descriptions’), which checks
>> upstream GNU descriptions.
>>
>> When such conflicts happen, we should give prec
Ludovic Courtès (2015-07-16 22:08 +0300) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Eric Bavier (2015-07-16 12:40 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:17:22 +0300
>>> Alex Kost wrote:
>>>
--- a/gnu/packages/base.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/base.scm
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
(sha
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> What are your concerns and what would you prefer? (I was left with the
> impression that there was a rough consensus in the other thread, but
> surely there’s a bias.)
>
> In Emacs it’s quite easily typed (C-x 8 RET etc.), and at worst people
> can copy/pa
Alex Kost writes:
> Mathieu Lirzin (2015-07-16 14:52 +0300) wrote:
>
> IMHO it is better to have a single commit fixing 20 typos than 20
> commits fixing one typo.
Your are right.
> How can we understand when a decision is made? I had an impression
> (perhaps wrong) that people are not going t
Alex Kost skribis:
> Eric Bavier (2015-07-16 12:40 +0300) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:17:22 +0300
>> Alex Kost wrote:
>>
>>> --- a/gnu/packages/base.scm
>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/base.scm
>>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
>>> (sha256
>>> (base32
>>> "0ssi1wpaf7plaswqqjwigppsg5
Mathieu Lirzin (2015-07-16 14:52 +0300) wrote:
> For the typos and polishing fixes, I would prefer that the commits were
> done in a module related way. So IMO It would be better to have one
> commit per-file.
IMHO it is better to have a single commit fixing 20 typos than 20
commits fixing one ty
Eric Bavier (2015-07-16 12:40 +0300) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:17:22 +0300
> Alex Kost wrote:
>
>> --- a/gnu/packages/base.scm
>> +++ b/gnu/packages/base.scm
>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
>> (sha256
>> (base32
>> "0ssi1wpaf7plaswqqjwigppsg5fyh99vdlb9kzl7c9lng89ndq1i"
>
Mathieu Lirzin skribis:
> For the typos and polishing fixes, I would prefer that the commits were
> done in a module related way. So IMO It would be better to have one
> commit per-file.
I think one per file would be overkill (and not really helpful
review-wise.) One per fix would be nice thoug
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:17:22 +0300
Alex Kost wrote:
> --- a/gnu/packages/base.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/base.scm
> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
> (sha256
> (base32
> "0ssi1wpaf7plaswqqjwigppsg5fyh99vdlb9kzl7c9lng89ndq1i"
> (build-system gnu-build-system)
> - (synopsis "Hello,
Alex Kost writes:
> Please pay attention to the commit message. Is it acceptable?
:)
For the typos and polishing fixes, I would prefer that the commits were
done in a module related way. So IMO It would be better to have one
commit per-file.
Concerning the "•", I think no decision has been ma
Please pay attention to the commit message. Is it acceptable?
>From ccd85cd8fc1b4c71a1e1fe02ad06f0a5413517e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Kost
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:14:13 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] gnu packages: Clean up synopses and descriptions.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: t
12 matches
Mail list logo
