On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 23:08 +0100, 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 -- th
Hey,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:06:13AM -0600, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> Hrm, after trawling the patchwork mailing list archives, it appears that
> it's not actually possible to change the patch state via email. The
> authors consider this to be insecure since anybody could change the
> review sta
On Sat, 2014-12-06 at 00:14 +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> 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
On 12/08/2014 02:53 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Uri Lublin wrote:
With current workflow, you have no guaratee that unreviewed patch go
there by mistake or maliciously. We would need a tool for that.
For me this is the job of maintainer to quickly review each com
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:53:43PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> This contradicts a bit the fact that you can do commit without review.
>
> I said "quickly", doing thorough review of all commits before a
> release is not doable. But it is the role of the maintainer to check
> all the commits
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Uri Lublin wrote:
>> With current workflow, you have no guaratee that unreviewed patch go
>> there by mistake or maliciously. We would need a tool for that.
>> For me this is the job of maintainer to quickly review each commit
>> before release.
>
>
> I disagree.
>
On 12/05/2014 05:52 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
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 fac
On 12/06/2014 04:04 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
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.
I agree with Marc-André here.
I too agree with Marc-Andre abou
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 07:18:50PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Where did you see that all patches have to be mandatorily reviewed in
> Spice? We always had a trivial push rule, and you always complained
> about it. That's all I know.
What I remember from my first few years in SPICE was that
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
[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 Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:09:15PM -0500, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:59:07PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> > > wrote:
> > > > Replacing autogen.sh with a totally differe
Hi
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:59:07PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> > wrote:
> > > Replacing autogen.sh with a totally different one is _not_ something
> > > trivial.
> >
> > It is to me, it took me about a
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:59:07PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> wrote:
> > Replacing autogen.sh with a totally different one is _not_ something
> > trivial.
>
> It is to me, it took me about a minute to do all that. It is also
> trivial t
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> Replacing autogen.sh with a totally different one is _not_ something
> trivial.
It is to me, it took me about a minute to do all that. It is also
trivial to remove it or change it. Do you have something to say about
the change itself?
-
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:42:18PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Use autoreconf, allow out of tree autogen.sh run.
> ---
> Pushed upstream as trivial build fix.
Replacing autogen.sh with a totally different one is _not_ something
trivial.
Christophe
pgpF0gZjXIhYD.pgp
Description: PGP signat
Use autoreconf, allow out of tree autogen.sh run.
---
Pushed upstream as trivial build fix.
autogen.sh | 167 -
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 157 deletions(-)
diff --git a/autogen.sh b/autogen.sh
index 7d7c534..de6881d 100755
--- a/a
34 matches
Mail list logo
