On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 10:50:39PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >Maybe something like "{...}", with a note at the top?
>
> We can add a note if you think it'll help. OTOH I don't think the
> curly brackets make it any more obvious. It resembles macro syntax,
> but not quite.
Or [...] or even PACK
On 20. 12. 21 21:04, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 06:53:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
1. It's not immediately clear that "..." means "put package name here".
Oh. See, to me this was rather obvious. What do you actually
expected it meant? Do you have an idea how to make it mo
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 06:53:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >1. It's not immediately clear that "..." means "put package name here".
>
> Oh. See, to me this was rather obvious. What do you actually
> expected it meant? Do you have an idea how to make it more clear?
Maybe something like "{...}
On 19. 12. 21 20:26, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 12:14:29PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 12. 21 17:58, Matthew Miller wrote:
The modern Python macros are ... kind of a lot to pick up as a casual
packager
If you could share a more constructive feedback, I'd gladly iterate
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 08:48:17AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> IMO, one of the causes is that we've been keeping the descriptions of
> older workflows.
Yeah, absolutely. I see that some of that was moved to a "201x-era" entirely
separate doc — it might be good to be more aggressiv
In general, I agree that the docs could use a short "tl;dr — the common case"
section at the top. This also applies to the "simplified" versioning guidelines
with full version info the the Version field. I wrote a chunk of the latest
text and I'm having trouble finding the right paragraph in all th
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 12:14:29PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 17. 12. 21 17:58, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >The modern Python macros are ... kind of a lot to pick up as a casual
> >packager
> If you could share a more constructive feedback, I'd gladly iterate
> on the documentation or the macros
On 17. 12. 21 17:58, Matthew Miller wrote:
The modern Python macros are ... kind of a lot to pick up as a casual packager
If you could share a more constructive feedback, I'd gladly iterate on the
documentation or the macros themselves.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_
> Hi! I'm using this https://github.com/gyli/PyWaffle for some visualizations
> for Fedora
> Project stats.
So, I've finally gotten around to packaging this up -- review request at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033481
it was a little annoying as I had to de-bundle fontawesome, b
On 19. 02. 21 22:57, Matthew Miller wrote:
Hi! I'm using this https://github.com/gyli/PyWaffle for some visualizations for
Fedora Project stats.
I'm kind of out of the loop on the state of the art of python packaging, and
wondered if some kind Python SIG person would like to take it on for me.
On 19. 02. 21 23:42, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 4:57 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
Hi! I'm using this https://github.com/gyli/PyWaffle for some visualizations for
Fedora Project stats.
I'm kind of out of the loop on the state of the art of python packaging, and
wondered if some ki
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 4:57 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Hi! I'm using this https://github.com/gyli/PyWaffle for some visualizations
> for Fedora Project stats.
>
> I'm kind of out of the loop on the state of the art of python packaging, and
> wondered if some kind Python SIG person would like
12 matches
Mail list logo
