On Mar 15, 07 13:39:55 -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:17 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
> > Good point. Mandatory comments are counter productive.
> >
> > If comments are mandatory, they will be more often at the
> > bullshit end of the spectrum than not.
> > With a hi
On 2007-03-15 13:39:55 -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:17 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
> > Good point. Mandatory comments are counter productive.
> >
> > If comments are mandatory, they will be more often at the
> > bullshit end of the spectrum than not.
> > With a high noise
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:17 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
> Good point. Mandatory comments are counter productive.
>
> If comments are mandatory, they will be more often at the
> bullshit end of the spectrum than not.
> With a high noise level around it, even the good comments become useles
Hi,
> With a high noise level around it, even the good comments become useless.
> So -- let us fight against those comments, that repeat just the obvious.
But please don't exaggerate and continue adding good comments ;-)
Yet another real-world example:
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?i
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
> So, you're telling us, that because someone might not remember (or
> understand) an obvious removal, any packager needs to comment in future
> any removal, even the obvious ones? Come on...
When it's obvious it needs no comment (just that, as a
On Mar 15, 07 17:22:18 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> > When it's obvious it needs no comment (just that, as already said here,
> > obviousness is a difficult measure).
>
> I agree that commenting everything is inappropriate and I also don
Stanislav Brabec wrote:
[...]
> In most packages, %install is used to install and add files somewhere.
> Removals here means very non-standard operation, which means "I don't
> want this file, installed by upstream". It is either bug work-around
> (removal of obsolete scrollkeeper cache file), tool
Klaus Singvogel píše v Čt 15. 03. 2007 v 16:49 +0100:
> So, is it a bug of a package to remove uncompressed manpages, because
> upstream installs uncompressed as well as compressed manpages into the
> system?
No, it is only something non obvious. If anybody else takes the package,
one must dig d
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Michael Matz wrote:
> When it's obvious it needs no comment (just that, as already said here,
> obviousness is a difficult measure).
I agree that commenting everything is inappropriate and I also don't think that
making comments mandatory is practicible, but good comme
Johannes Meixner wrote:
>
> I do not have the time to write no comments!
>
> Reason:
> When I work some time later again on the package I might
> perhaps not remember every detail why I did what and then
> my comments save my time.
So, you're telling us, that because someone might not remember (
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote:
>
> > "Packagers should have a clue what they're doing or document they have
> > none"
> > is as good as it gets for me :)
>
> Well - if we need such a policy there's something wrong. Can you spot
>
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > I don't see what the build team has to do with that.
> > Are you really making the case for not writing comments? I can't believe
> > that.
> There are things on earth harder to believe - say Matz before 9 on a
> thursday :)
What exactly does t
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> "Packagers should have a clue what they're doing or document they have none"
> is as good as it gets for me :)
Well - if we need such a policy there's something wrong. Can you spot
the mistake? ;)
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No
Hello,
On Mar 15 15:08 Juergen Weigert wrote (shortened):
> "# I don't care about this gconf stuff. Remove seems to help."
A perfect example of a meaningful comment!
It describes the idea behind - i.e. why it was done - even
if it is only because of being clueless.
Kind Regards
Johannes Meixner
Am Thursday 15 March 2007 schrieb Michael Matz:
>
> I don't see what the build team has to do with that.
> Are you really making the case for not writing comments? I can't believe
> that.
There are things on earth harder to believe - say Matz before 9 on a
thursday :)
I'm not speaking against co
Hello,
On Mar 15 14:58 Juergen Weigert wrote (shortened):
> The concept of 'totally obvious' is an illusion.
You got the idea because:
> I use this as a rule of thumb:
> Whenever I read my own code a second time, and have to think about
> a line for more than a split second, I put a comment nex
Juergen Weigert píše v Čt 15. 03. 2007 v 15:08 +0100:
> On Mar 15, 07 14:53:50 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
> >
> > > Hallo.
> > >
> > > I have just notified, that many people "fix" (i. e. break) their
> > > packages to pass QA checks by removing
Hello,
On Mar 15 14:35 Klaus Singvogel wrote (shortened):
> Please explain to me: which maintainer is having so much time?
I do not have the time to write no comments!
Reason:
When I work some time later again on the package I might
perhaps not remember every detail why I did what and then
my c
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > No. Especially cluelessness needs documentation.
> > Example:
> > "# I don't care about this gconf stuff. Remove seems to help."
> >
> > This is a very useful comment.
> > It pinpoints the actual problem that the maintainer has.
>
> Yeah, what go
Am Thursday 15 March 2007 schrieb Juergen Weigert:
> On Mar 15, 07 14:53:50 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
> > > Hallo.
> > >
> > > I have just notified, that many people "fix" (i. e. break) their
> > > packages to pass QA checks by removing required
On Mar 15, 07 14:53:50 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
>
> > Hallo.
> >
> > I have just notified, that many people "fix" (i. e. break) their
> > packages to pass QA checks by removing required files instead of fixing
> > them, i. e. removing .desktop
On Mar 15, 07 14:21:22 +0100, Johannes Meixner wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mar 15 11:45 Stanislav Brabec wrote (shortened):
> > So I propose:
> > Each removal in %install phase must be correctly commented
>
> I suggest even more:
> Everything in the spec file where it is not totally obvious
> what
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
> Hallo.
>
> I have just notified, that many people "fix" (i. e. break) their
> packages to pass QA checks by removing required files instead of fixing
> them, i. e. removing .desktop files instead of installing icon or fixing
> Categories, removing gc
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
> > On Mar 15 11:45 Stanislav Brabec wrote (shortened):
> > > So I propose:
> > > Each removal in %install phase must be correctly commented
>
> Please explain to me: which maintainer is having so much time?
That's part of maintaining a package.
Johannes Meixner wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mar 15 11:45 Stanislav Brabec wrote (shortened):
> > So I propose:
> > Each removal in %install phase must be correctly commented
Please explain to me: which maintainer is having so much time?
> I suggest even more:
> Everything in the spec file where i
Hello,
On Mar 15 11:45 Stanislav Brabec wrote (shortened):
> So I propose:
> Each removal in %install phase must be correctly commented
I suggest even more:
Everything in the spec file where it is not totally obvious
what it does and why it is done must be commented so that an
external person un
Hallo.
I have just notified, that many people "fix" (i. e. break) their
packages to pass QA checks by removing required files instead of fixing
them, i. e. removing .desktop files instead of installing icon or fixing
Categories, removing gconf schemas instead of correct installation.
So I propose
27 matches
Mail list logo
