Hi, everyone!
As Fedora packager, I find it difficult to work with current
dockapps.git repo. There was discussion about that couple of
months ago, let me remind key issues:
1. No releases for particular dockapps. Yes, we have continuous
development, but package maintainers need release tarball
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 at 15:06:36 +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> Hi, everyone!
>
> As Fedora packager, I find it difficult to work with current
> dockapps.git repo. There was discussion about that couple of
> months ago, let me remind key issues:
>
> 1. No releases for particular dockapps. Yes
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:59:42PM +0100, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> What about using a unified dockapp version for all dockapps under
> the repository?
> Say that I tag the repo now as 'version 0.5' and all dockapps
> will have the extra version 'dockapps v0.5' attached to them.
There is wmweather+
On 03.04.2013 14:55, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
[snip]
timestamps, like .MM.DD, this is even better.
If you are going to use timestamps, please use the ISO 8601 format:
-MM-DD
Best regards
Andreas
--
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`o_ o ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
On 03/04/2013 13:06, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> Hi, everyone!
Hi Alexey,
> As Fedora packager, I find it difficult to work with current
> dockapps.git repo. There was discussion about that couple of
> months ago, let me remind key issues:
I have the same problem here, with some debian applicati
On 03/04/2013 14:55, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:59:42PM +0100, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>> What about using a unified dockapp version for all dockapps under
>> the repository?
>> Say that I tag the repo now as 'version 0.5' and all dockapps
>> will have the extra version 'd
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 06:03:09PM +0200, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
> I think that every dockapp should continue with their version number if
> the code doesn't change. I think dockapps repo is only to hold all
> applications together and avoid lost them.
How do you suggest tracking docka
On 03/04/2013 18:59, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 06:03:09PM +0200, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
>> I think that every dockapp should continue with their version number if
>> the code doesn't change. I think dockapps repo is only to hold all
>> applications together and
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 at 20:40:02 +0200, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
>
> One thing more, please hold only *one* repo for the dockapps.
If we can agree on that first, we can try to work out the rest.
But I also feel like having a central place for all these dockapps
is much better than havi
On 03/04/2013 21:25, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 at 20:40:02 +0200, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
>>
>> One thing more, please hold only *one* repo for the dockapps.
>
> If we can agree on that first, we can try to work out the rest.
>
> But I also feel like having a centra
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 at 21:30:50 +0200, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
> On 03/04/2013 21:25, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 at 20:40:02 +0200, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
> >>
> >> One thing more, please hold only *one* repo for the dockapps.
> >
> > If we can agree on
On 03/04/2013 21:52, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 at 21:30:50 +0200, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
>> On 03/04/2013 21:25, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 at 20:40:02 +0200, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
One thing more, please hold only *one* rep
Quoting "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" :
Perhaps Carlos, Alexey, both can be uploaders for the dockapps, in
repo.or.cz or github. But, IMO, we need something like drupal, with
BTS,... all together.
Perhaps is not bad Idea move to github. Github has these things
(bts,...) [1] We can try it with
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 at 8:07:34 +, Rodolfo García Peñas (kix) wrote:
>
> Quoting "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" :
>
> >Perhaps Carlos, Alexey, both can be uploaders for the dockapps, in
> >repo.or.cz or github. But, IMO, we need something like drupal, with
> >BTS,... all together.
>
> Perhaps
On 04.04.2013 10:43, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
[snip]
The only strong opinion I have on this issue is to have all those
dockapps in one repo.
I don't know git that well, but I thought there were submodules. So we
can have one repo for each dockapp and one repo which contains only a
"shell" that
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 at 11:15:21 +0200, Andreas Tscharner wrote:
> On 04.04.2013 10:43, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >The only strong opinion I have on this issue is to have all those
> >dockapps in one repo.
>
> I don't know git that well, but I thought there were submodules. So
> we can h
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:43:50AM +0100, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> The question is whether Alexey wants to be the maintainer of dockapps
> and I decommission the dockapps.git and my maintainance of it.
I'm afraid you got me wrong.
I am pretty happy with current dockapps.git, git-send-email works
j
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 at 17:04:50 +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:43:50AM +0100, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>
> The only thing I want is an easy way to get tarball of a given
> subdirectory inside git repo. By "easy" I mean "knowing name and
> version of a particular dockap
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:34:02PM +0100, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> > Step zero is to add tags to the repo. Without tags you will get
> > different results each time you call git-archive.
> Ok, I will do that, "dockapps v1.0". Is that acceptable?
No. wmweather+ have version 2.12.
> > Then these t
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
Step zero is to add tags to the repo. Without tags you will get
different results each time you call git-archive.
Ok, I will do that, "dockapps v1.0". Is that acceptable?
Does that mean that a change in say wmbiff will increase the version
number o
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 at 19:34:08 +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> >>Step zero is to add tags to the repo. Without tags you will get
> >>different results each time you call git-archive.
> >
> >Ok, I will do that, "dockapps v1.0". Is that acceptable?
>
> D
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
There _is_ a huge advantage in keeping things together and releasing
them together.
Depending on how you look at it. It may be less work for you but for users
who only use one or two dockapps (which is typical) from the 40 you plan
to release togethe
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 at 22:51:26 +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> >There _is_ a huge advantage in keeping things together and releasing
> >them together.
>
> Depending on how you look at it. It may be less work for you but for
> users who only use one or t
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
But that is not new behavior. I use ksnapshot and to have that app
I need to install the 'graphics' package and then I also have okular
etc (or something like that).
Maybe that's part of the reason I don't like big Desktop Environments like
KDE or Gno
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 at 12:20:28 +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>
> >There were patches to wmbiff recently. What should I do? Write a patch
> >changing the #define version x.y for wmbiff only and announcing that
> >I'm releasing a new wmbiff?
>
> Or just tag the repository with a tag wmbiff-x.y when
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013, Carlos R. Mafra escribió:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 at 12:20:28 +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> >
> > >There were patches to wmbiff recently. What should I do? Write a patch
> > >changing the #define version x.y for wmbiff only and announcing that
> > >I'm releasing a new wmbiff?
26 matches
Mail list logo
