Il giorno Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:42:21 +1300
Ben Cooksley ha scritto:
> Please remember that your software is built by others outside the
> Plasma team. Just letting the members of the Plasma team know isn't
> very considerate to them.
FTR, developers aren't the only ones following reviews: I keep
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> Am 2017-01-13 03:10, schrieb Michael Pyne:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:02:40PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 2017-01-12 08:32, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
>>> > It would probably be a good idea to announce it for other developers
>>
Am 2017-01-13 03:10, schrieb Michael Pyne:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:02:40PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
Am 2017-01-12 08:32, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
> It would probably be a good idea to announce it for other developers
> to know about as well so they can sort their systems out.
that's what we
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:02:40PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> Am 2017-01-12 08:32, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
> > It would probably be a good idea to announce it for other developers
> > to know about as well so they can sort their systems out.
>
> that's what we have code review for :-)
No, code
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129810/
---
Review request for KDE Base Apps.
Bugs: 72646
https;//bugs.kde.org/sh
On 01/13/2017 02:07 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> Fedora devs don't want it.
Since it might help: Kevin Kofler isn't part of the Fedora KDE SIG, so
his opinion in the thread is his own rather than representative of that
team/community.
> Martin
Cheers,
Eike
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> do you have some examples of distribution maintainers actually doing such
> a stupid thing?
I've done it more than once. If the dependency that the latest upstream
version wants is not available and will not be made available for whatever
reason, reverting the dependency bump
Am 2017-01-12 17:13, schrieb Luca Beltrame:
Il giorno Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:53:18 +0100
Martin Gräßlin ha scritto:
If you do nevertheless, my upstream position is GO FUCK YOURSELF! It
will mean that I will directly close every bug report we get from
Fedora with RESOLVED DOWNSTREAM, "Cannot inves
On 01/13/2017 01:13 AM, Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Remember: even if we have disagreements (even strong), we're all on the
> same side.
I strongly agree with this. We have enough problems (e.g. making
great software) without fighting each other. As a bystander I've
been disappointed by multiple part
How much work would it be to allow contributors to upload new versions
to the CI? In openSUSE, for example, we have separate repos that contain
new package versions that are not yet in standard distribution
repositories, and so are able to build and deploy unstable versions for
practically all
Il giorno Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:53:18 +0100
Martin Gräßlin ha scritto:
> If you do nevertheless, my upstream position is GO FUCK YOURSELF! It
> will mean that I will directly close every bug report we get from
> Fedora with RESOLVED DOWNSTREAM, "Cannot investigate, Fedora patched
OK, things are
On čtvrtek 12. ledna 2017 15:28:08 CET, Kevin Kofler wrote:
What will happen now is that they will revert your commits that require the
unavailable version of the library. It is just more work for us packagers
Hi Kevin,
do you have some examples of distribution maintainers actually doing such a
Am 2017-01-12 08:32, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Martin Gräßlin
wrote:
Am 2017-01-11 10:46, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Martin Gräßlin
wrote:
Am 10. Januar 2017 22:42:35 MEZ schrieb Ben Cooksley
:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Ma
Am 2017-01-12 15:28, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Martin Gräßlin wrote:
You know what happens when we ifdef the version of dependencies?
Thinks
break in distributions. They ignore the optional dependency and ship
with the older one. Which results in issues we upstream developers
have
to care about.
Am 2017-01-12 15:14, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Martin Gräßlin wrote:
Everybody except I. I would have to maintain that mess. And I don't
have
time to maintain multiple compile time paths.
I don't see how it would be any more work to maintain #if FEATURE as
compared to #if 0.
The difference is t
Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> You know what happens when we ifdef the version of dependencies? Thinks
> break in distributions. They ignore the optional dependency and ship
> with the older one. Which results in issues we upstream developers have
> to care about. The quality of our product goes down and
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I don't see how it would be any more work to maintain #if FEATURE as
> compared to #if 0.
We've had cases of eventually no-one compiling that code, and if
somebody compiles that codepath it results in complete failure or
crazy bugs to debug.
Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> Everybody except I. I would have to maintain that mess. And I don't have
> time to maintain multiple compile time paths.
I don't see how it would be any more work to maintain #if FEATURE as
compared to #if 0.
Kevin Kofler
18 matches
Mail list logo
