[Moving discussion to tails-dev@]
Given the trimming that has happened, some context may have been lost.
The discussion is about that we now, in our Jenkins setup, automatically
test images built from doc/ and web/ branches, which wastes a lot of
time on our isotesters.
> From: intrigeri
> Date:
anonym:
> [Moving discussion to tails-dev@]
Meta: I really don't want to understand everything that's in this email
but I felt you would want me to answer this one. But if you think that
you can have this discussion without me I would be super happy as well.
> Given the trimming that has happened
sajolida:
> anonym:
>> [Moving discussion to tails-dev@]
>
> Meta: I really don't want to understand everything that's in this email
> but I felt you would want me to answer this one. But if you think that
> you can have this discussion without me I would be super happy as well.
I believe you hav
anonym:
> sajolida:
>> anonym:
>>> [Moving discussion to tails-dev@]
>>
>> Meta: I really don't want to understand everything that's in this email
>> but I felt you would want me to answer this one. But if you think that
>> you can have this discussion without me I would be super happy as well.
>
sajolida:
> anonym:
>> sajolida:
>>> anonym:
[Moving discussion to tails-dev@]
>>>
>>> Meta: I really don't want to understand everything that's in this email
>>> but I felt you would want me to answer this one. But if you think that
>>> you can have this discussion without me I would be super
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 04:52:31PM +, anonym wrote:
> sajolida:
> > anonym:
> >> sajolida:
> > From: intrigeri
> > Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:08:31 +0200
> >
> > FTR I dislike the idea of blacklisting such branches based on their
> > name. I'm
bertagaz wrote (18 Nov 2015 12:34:34 GMT) :
> Intrigeri, what's on your opinion on [...]
Please give me an explicit deadline.
Thanks for asking!
___
Tails-dev mailing list
Tails-dev@boum.org
https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
To unsubscribe fro
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:38:00PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> bertagaz wrote (18 Nov 2015 12:34:34 GMT) :
> > Intrigeri, what's on your opinion on [...]
>
> Please give me an explicit deadline.
I probably won't be able to work on it before week 49 anyway, so no
rush, but an answer before woul
Hi,
[too bad it's too late to rename this thread, now that there have been
6 replies, to it.]
anonym wrote (21 Oct 2015 12:46:37 GMT) :
>> FTR I dislike the idea of blacklisting such branches based on their
>> name. I'm not going to debate it here [...]
> Please do it here, then! :) I guess it'
Hi,
sajolida wrote (22 Oct 2015 12:19:04 GMT) :
>>> FTR I dislike the idea of blacklisting such branches based on their
>>> name. I'm not going to debate it here [...]
> The prefixes doc/ and web/ are used loosely to differentiate work on the
> "documentation" (/doc /support) and the "website" in
Hi,
anonym wrote (28 Oct 2015 16:52:31 GMT) :
> Then I think we can combine the "..." operator with another fancy Git
> feature I recently found, namely Git pathspec "magic signatures". So we
> could do:
>BASE_BRANCH_DIFF="$(git diff $base_branch...$commit -- \
>'
intrigeri:
> sajolida wrote (22 Oct 2015 12:19:04 GMT) :
FTR I dislike the idea of blacklisting such branches based on their
name. I'm not going to debate it here [...]
>
>> The prefixes doc/ and web/ are used loosely to differentiate work on the
>> "documentation" (/doc /support) and th
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:28:13PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
>
> So, it seems that the current proposal is to skip the temporary
> workaround (name-based filtering), and instead directly do
> content-based filtering. Fine by me!
Yay! Happy to get a consensus.
> What's missing is:
>
> * the
Hi,
bertagaz wrote (03 Dec 2015 15:40:09 GMT) :
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:28:13PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
>> * the list of scenarios that shall be tagged @doc: at least the one
>>anonym mentioned earlier in this thread; plus "check all PO files"
>>I guess; the WhisperBack tests once th
14 matches
Mail list logo
