On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Marc-André Lureau
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I basically agree with Christophe and Jeremy.
>> (Although I think that describing it as "mandatory code review" is
>> over-stating the case a bit -- there
On 12/06/2014 12:00 AM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 23:41 +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> At the same time, I'm not sure mailing lists are the right tool for code
>>> review. It's difficult to track which patches have been reviewed and
>>> which haven't.
>>
>> http://
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> For what it's worth, I basically agree with Christophe and Jeremy.
> (Although I think that describing it as "mandatory code review" is
> over-stating the case a bit -- there is nothing but peer pressure and
> polite requests preventing co
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 23:41 +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > At the same time, I'm not sure mailing lists are the right tool for code
> > review. It's difficult to track which patches have been reviewed and
> > which haven't.
>
> http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/Spice/list/ can h
On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 18:15 +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> ---
> common/Makefile.am | 3 ++-
> configure.ac | 20 +++-
> m4/smartcard.m4| 23 +++
> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 m4/smartcard.m4
>
> diff
[snip]
>
> At the same time, I'm not sure mailing lists are the right tool for code
> review. It's difficult to track which patches have been reviewed and
> which haven't.
http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/Spice/list/ can help, linked
from the wiki btw (http://www.spice-space.org/page/Mai
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 21:34 +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Jeremy White wrote:
> > To be clear, I am an advocate of mandatory review. I, personally, would not
> > want to ever push a patch unless someone else has at least glanced at it.
>
> Thanks, it w
Hi
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Jeremy White wrote:
> To be clear, I am an advocate of mandatory review. I, personally, would not
> want to ever push a patch unless someone else has at least glanced at it.
Thanks, it was pretty clear already. Nevertheless, you didn't bring
this before (did y
May be the other raison Jeremy step up is because of this noisy and
endless discussion.
To be clear, I am an advocate of mandatory review. I, personally, would
not want to ever push a patch unless someone else has at least glanced
at it.
Cheers,
Jeremy
_
Hi
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 06:03:42PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Christophe Fergeau
>> wrote:
>> > What is so bad with having a commit delayed for a few hours while it's
>> > waiting for reviews?
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 06:03:42PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> wrote:
> > What is so bad with having a commit delayed for a few hours while it's
> > waiting for reviews?
>
> It is mainly the difference between asking someone to take an a
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:52:49PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> "Use autoreconf, allow out of tree autogen.sh run."
>
> Nowhere it says that you just got rid of the existing autogen.sh and
> replaced it with something else, you only
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:52:49PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> By that I mean that they are aware of the responsability of doing
> unreview commit.
Yup, except we disagree on the importance of good commit messages for
example.
>
> >
> >> Nothing like replacing a crufted autogen with an obv
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:57:29PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> The blame will be anyway on the one who
>> typed it forever.
>
> I have absolutely no interest in blaming people after the fact, I prefer
> to fix things before the mis
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:57:29PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Ok, but a commit message is not as important as the change itself,
> although it's not reversible.
But it's far from being unimportant.
> The blame will be anyway on the one who
> typed it forever.
I have absolutely no interest
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>> But to me, it makes the project less friendly if people have no trust
>> to each other for the most basic and obvious improvements.
>
> Basic, obvious is very subjective... It's not a matter of trusting
> people or not (I'm the person I
Hey,
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 08:46:16AM -0500, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > >>> Yes, that it should not have been pushed.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > I would prefer we eliminated the trivial push rule altogether.
>
> I agree, if it can help to avoid this kind of endl
I agree, if it can help to avoid this kind of endless discussion.
:-/. Yes, a good point.
But to me, it makes the project less friendly if people have no trust to each
other for the most basic and obvious improvements. I am not talking about
controversial or complicated fixes. But doc addi
Hi
- Original Message -
> >>> Yes, that it should not have been pushed.
>
> I agree.
>
> I would prefer we eliminated the trivial push rule altogether.
I agree, if it can help to avoid this kind of endless discussion.
But to me, it makes the project less friendly if people have no trus
Yes, that it should not have been pushed.
I agree.
I would prefer we eliminated the trivial push rule altogether.
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> Hmm thinking a bit more about this would work, I assume this would mean
> having a --enable-spice-common-build configure argument which would
> check for the additional dependencies that spice-common needs (opus,
> celt, ...), and which
Hey,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:51:08AM -0500, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:22:34AM -0500, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > >
> > > hi
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:12:53AM -0500, Marc-André
Hey,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 06:06:34AM -0500, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> - branch the module and submodule for the feature X
> - properly track submodule for changes just like any other change in the repo
> - make sure to run autogen or git submodule update when switching
> branches (this is usua
23 matches
Mail list logo
