On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 15:11 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>> But then, there's a tendency nowadays to avoid map/filter/etc,
>> so that's probably not best :)
>
> Oh, is there? What's the objection to those constructs, out of
> interest? I am q
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 15:11 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> But then, there's a tendency nowadays to avoid map/filter/etc,
> so that's probably not best :)
Oh, is there? What's the objection to those constructs, out of
interest? I am quite fond of them myself.
p.
__
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 17:20 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Paul Eggleton
>> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 25 August 2011 00:16:40 Chris Larson wrote:
>> >> I strongly disagree with this. The fact is, we almost neve
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 17:20 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Paul Eggleton
> wrote:
> > On Thursday 25 August 2011 00:16:40 Chris Larson wrote:
> >> I strongly disagree with this. The fact is, we almost never go back
> >> and "clean these up later", so crap accrues.
>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Paul Eggleton
wrote:
> On Thursday 25 August 2011 00:16:40 Chris Larson wrote:
>> I strongly disagree with this. The fact is, we almost never go back
>> and "clean these up later", so crap accrues.
>
> We're talking about the difference between:
>
> if a = "":
>
>
On Thursday 25 August 2011 00:16:40 Chris Larson wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this. The fact is, we almost never go back
> and "clean these up later", so crap accrues.
We're talking about the difference between:
if a = "":
and
if a:
This is not crap, it's a triviality (for the case where
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Paul Eggleton
wrote:
> FWIW I agree with Martin; I wouldn't hold back the patch just for this reason
> - it's not incorrect code, it's consistent with the rest of the file, and we
> can easily clean these up later.
I strongly disagree with this. The fact is, we al
On 08/19/2011 05:16 AM, martin.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Martin Jansa
* if there is multiple .bbappend files with FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "/:"
then the one parsed last is causing trailing ':' and that's causing empty
element in
path = extrapaths.split(:) + path
* it's hard to keep a
On Friday 19 August 2011 23:16:53 Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 03:11:08PM -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:16 AM, wrote:
> > > From: Martin Jansa
> > >
> > > * if there is multiple .bbappend files with FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend :=
> > > "/:" then the one p
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 03:11:08PM -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:16 AM, wrote:
> > From: Martin Jansa
> >
> > * if there is multiple .bbappend files with FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "/:"
> > then the one parsed last is causing trailing ':' and that's causing empty
> > e
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:16 AM, wrote:
> From: Martin Jansa
>
> * if there is multiple .bbappend files with FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "/:"
> then the one parsed last is causing trailing ':' and that's causing empty
> element in
> path = extrapaths.split(:) + path
> * it's hard to keep all .
From: Martin Jansa
* if there is multiple .bbappend files with FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "/:"
then the one parsed last is causing trailing ':' and that's causing empty
element in
path = extrapaths.split(:) + path
* it's hard to keep all .bbappends from foreign layers to follow this rule, so
12 matches
Mail list logo
