2008/9/9 Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> And it would be very nice, when you hide the Email-Address to
>> block the bots, who collect spam targets.
>
> Is that needed, given how the addresses are in the open on
> the mailing list and all its archives?
>
I doubt it, we're probably on every possibl
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Detlef Riekenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/
>
> Opps, all developer send there Patches in September with "09" as minute,
> and in August with "08" ...
Whoops!
> And it would be very nice, when you hide the Email-Addr
On Fr, 2008-09-05 at 10:24 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> The results page
> http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/
> looks nice and green;
Opps, all developer send there Patches in September with "09" as minute,
and in August with "08" ...
:-)
And it would be very nice, when you hide the Email
2008/8/12 Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:47 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> couldn't you instead when the patchwatcher takes the patch it assigns it a
>> patch # and require if there is a patch dependency that the person put into
>> a comment REQ_PATCH: 123456,15456,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about checking for a string in the email like "patchwatchignore";
> if for some reason the patch is known to cause a failure the e-mail
> might read like:
>patchwatchignore
>This depends on Harald's pat
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 22:24 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Zachary Goldberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Policy is that all patches should be independent, no?
> >
> > There is no such a policy. Dependent patches are marked as
> > 1/xx, 2/xx, ... x
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Reece Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use GMail to do something similar - tag mail I send to wine-patches
> with a 'wine-tracking' label, as well as the 'wine-patches' label it
> gets from the mailing list filter I have. This allows me to see all
> active patch
Am Dienstag, den 12.08.2008, 08:26 -0700 schrieb Dan Kegel:
> Yeah, I know. I fiddled with the colors for a while, but not very
> effectively.
> I'm partly color-blind, and am not really the best person to
> work on the look of the reports page. If somebody else would like
> to get the colors ri
Michael Karcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes. I already changed the success message to make more sense,
>> and added background colors of green and red for success and failure.
> I dislike the implementation, while I like the idea. You now have:
>
> a:visited { color: #FF; }
> .fail { bac
>> Yes. I already changed the success message to make more sense,
>> and added background colors of green and red for success and failure.
> I dislike the implementation, while I like the idea. You now have:
>
> a:visited { color: #FF; }
> .fail { background color: #ff5050; }
>
> At least on m
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:47 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> couldn't you instead when the patchwatcher takes the patch it assigns it a
> patch # and require if there is a patch dependency that the person put into
> a comment REQ_PATCH: 123456,15456, etc.. ?
Yes, perhaps if patchwatcher catches
Am Montag, den 11.08.2008, 17:34 -0700 schrieb Dan Kegel:
> Yes. I already changed the success message to make more sense,
> and added background colors of green and red for success and failure.
I dislike the implementation, while I like the idea. You now have:
a:visited { color: #FF; }
.fail
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> When running tests for the patch, I think we should just run the tests
>>> of the dlls that are affected direct;y or i
Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When running tests for the patch, I think we should just run the tests
>> of the dlls that are affected direct;y or indirectly by that change.
>> its running the tests for entire wine, which is very
"Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a patch series, and patchwatcher handles that ok.
>
> There's another kind of dependent patch, where somebody
> says "This requires Harold's patch from yesterday".
> Patchwatcher probably isn't going to handle that ever.
Well, that happens not that
Dmitry Timoshkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Zachary Goldberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Policy is that all patches should be independent, no?
>
> There is no such a policy. Dependent patches are marked as
> 1/xx, 2/xx, ... xx/xx.
That's a patch series, and patchwatcher handles that ok.
T
"Zachary Goldberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Policy is that all patches should be independent, no?
There is no such a policy. Dependent patches are marked as
1/xx, 2/xx, ... xx/xx.
--
Dmitry.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ahh... I forgot how to handle dependent patches, if they are not in a
>> patch series
>
> I don't know if there's a good way to handle those.
> Maybe just encourage people not t
Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahh... I forgot how to handle dependent patches, if they are not in a
> patch series
I don't know if there's a good way to handle those.
Maybe just encourage people not to send them :-)
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also add Yellow for ignored patches.
>
> Let me think on that a bit. Probably.
>
>> For ignored patches /i would like to add a second pass, when have to
>> check if the patch i
Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also add Yellow for ignored patches.
Let me think on that a bit. Probably.
> For ignored patches /i would like to add a second pass, when have to
> check if the patch is generated by git or not
> if not patch is being ignored now, for that we need
Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [much quoted text]
Please trim the quotes down a bit when you reply...
> Dan, how are you handling the case when Alexandre floods the list with
> commits?
See refresh_tree(),
http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/source/browse/trunk/patchwatcher/patchwat
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ok I was expressing my concern as it took around 2-3hrs to see my
>> patch in the patchwatcher.
>
> It's running on a 1GHz single core machine right now.
> I'll probably put it o
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ok I was expressing my concern as it took around 2-3hrs to see my
>> patch in the patchwatcher.
>
> It's running on a 1GHz single core machine right now.
> I'll probably put it o
Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok I was expressing my concern as it took around 2-3hrs to see my
> patch in the patchwatcher.
It's running on a 1GHz single core machine right now.
I'll probably put it on something rather faster.
> Also as you you running the wine tests all for ea
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When running tests for the patch, I think we should just run the tests
>> of the dlls that are affected direct;y or indirectly by that change.
>>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When running tests for the patch, I think we should just run the tests
> of the dlls that are affected direct;y or indirectly by that change.
> its running the tests for entire wine, which is very time consuming.
True
Hi,
I have one more concern.
Its regarding running of tests.
When running tests for the patch, I think we should just run the tests
of the dlls that are affected direct;y or indirectly by that change.
its running the tests for entire wine, which is very time consuming.
What will happen if we have
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Michael Karcher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 11.08.2008, 09:45 -0700 schrieb Dan Kegel:
>> The scripts now run conformance tests and report regressions.
> Does "Ditto, but just the new error:" mean that there are
> no new errors?
Yes. Sorry, I'll t
Am Montag, den 11.08.2008, 09:45 -0700 schrieb Dan Kegel:
> The scripts now run conformance tests and report regressions.
Does "Ditto, but just the new error:" mean that there are
no new errors?
Regards,
Michael Karcher
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the moment, the results only go to a web page,
> http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/
> Most of the results there right now are just test messages
> so you can see how it will look when real patches
> with various pr
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the moment, the results only go to a web page,
> http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/
> Most of the results there right now are just test messages
> so you can see how it will look when real patches
> with various pr
32 matches
Mail list logo
