On 2007-03-16 17:18:07 +, Eric Hall wrote:
> Indeed. I think dictating spacing will be a headache for
> current and potential maintainers and result in fewer people joining
> in.
> Adding a suggestion in the Portfile maintenance doc
> about documenting the tab/space width used woul
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:15:58AM -0400, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> >There were not that many participants. I tried to put up a fight in
> >favor of keeping hard tabs, but I was the only one. :-) Upon
> >further consideration, I don't think I rea
(ref: http://www.bikeshed.com/)
I love little discussions like this because:
A) The people involved generally feel very strongly about the issue
in question and get offended when you point out that, in the greater
scheme of things, 6 billion other people could genuinely give a damn
about
On Mar 15, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Paul Guyot wrote:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
There were not that many participants. I tried to put up a fight
in favor of keeping hard tabs, but I was the only one. :-) Upon
further consideration, I don't think I really care that much one
On Mar 15, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2007-03-15 10:15:58 -0400, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
The old rule was that Porfiles should be internally consistent.
That was it - and I don't think it's so bad to let portfile authors
handle things however they want as long as the result
On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
There were not that many participants. I tried to put up a fight
in favor of keeping hard tabs, but I was the only one. :-) Upon
further consideration, I don't think I really care that much one
way or another, and I do recognize that a whole c
On 2007-03-15 10:15:58 -0400, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> The old rule was that Porfiles should be internally consistent.
> That was it - and I don't think it's so bad to let portfile authors
> handle things however they want as long as the result isn't totally
> unreadable for everything else.
But t
On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
There were not that many participants. I tried to put up a fight in
favor of keeping hard tabs, but I was the only one. :-) Upon
further consideration, I don't think I really care that much one
way or another, and I do recognize that a whole c
On Mar 14, 2007, at 19:27, Paul Beard wrote:
On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Yves de Champlain wrote:
While it is not a bad idea to write it on the list, it should be
included in some Portfile guide. Maybe not too far from the svn
properties
What we should do is this:
- Inform both mailing
On 2007-03-14 19:19:20 -0400, Kevin Ballard wrote:
> I would ask that all new Portfile submissions be done with 4-space
> soft tabs instead. Using spaces means all editors will present the
> Portfile the same way. Every single modern editor (including emacs
> and vim) has the capability of doing 4-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Yves de Champlain wrote:
While it is not a bad idea to write it on the list, it should be
included in some Portfile guide. Maybe not too far from the svn
properties ...
Not that I want to tamp down a good flame wa
Le 07-03-14 à 19:19, Kevin Ballard a écrit :
Pretty much every single new portfile submission I look at appears
to have been made with hard tabs set at 8 width. However, I (and
many others) use 4-width tabs, so these portfiles look very ugly in
our editors.
I would ask that all new Portf
Pretty much every single new portfile submission I look at appears to
have been made with hard tabs set at 8 width. However, I (and many
others) use 4-width tabs, so these portfiles look very ugly in our
editors.
I would ask that all new Portfile submissions be done with 4-space
soft tabs
13 matches
Mail list logo
