[pacman-dev] Adding namcap-git to the [pacman-git] repo
Is namcap in good shape? Is it ready to be tested? Or will it come long after pacman 3.1? Does it make sense to file a bug report on the current namcap? Corrado
On Nov 8, 2007 3:24 AM, bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com> wrote:
Is namcap in good shape? Is it ready to be tested? Or will it come long after pacman 3.1? Does it make sense to file a bug report on the current namcap?
There's like 40 things going on in this email. Firstly, the title - why would we combine the git repos? What benefits would we gain? Secondly, you need to define "good shape" - all the devs use (or should use) namcap daily. Thirdly, it always makes sense to file a bug - if it is fixed in yet-unreleased-code then it will be closed.
2007/11/8, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
There's like 40 things going on in this email.
Yeah, sorry. I like to create confusion :-)
Firstly, the title - why would we combine the git repos? What benefits would we gain?
Ok, I think I must be going crazy. Some time ago I was browsing bug reports/FRs for namcap to see if something had already been reported and I read something (written in August) about the upcoming namcap 2.0 release. What I didn't notice prior to writing this e-mail is that I was *already* using the new version. Now, if I understood correctly the pacman-git repo was born to test pacman as it approached 3.1, so this would have been a good base to start testing namcap 2.0, too. If it wasn't already out. Shame on me.
Secondly, you need to define "good shape" - all the devs use (or should use) namcap daily.
I do... "namcap" is my second name. In prospect of wide-audience testing it would have been good to publish an unbroken package.
Thirdly, it always makes sense to file a bug - if it is fixed in yet-unreleased-code then it will be closed.
Ok, finally I got something out of this otherwise pointless e-mail. I wasn't sure about that: I always make a lot of mistakes, and I don't want to steal precious time from devs. I'm not sure I'd try to report a bug for the stable branch of pacman right now: probably it already has been spotted. That's why I wanted a namcap pre-release: check before making a mess. Well, I managed to do it anyway. Corrado
On Nov 8, 2007 11:25 AM, bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/11/8, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
There's like 40 things going on in this email.
Yeah, sorry. I like to create confusion :-)
Firstly, the title - why would we combine the git repos? What benefits would we gain?
Ok, I think I must be going crazy. Some time ago I was browsing bug reports/FRs for namcap to see if something had already been reported and I read something (written in August) about the upcoming namcap 2.0 release. What I didn't notice prior to writing this e-mail is that I was *already* using the new version. Now, if I understood correctly the pacman-git repo was born to test pacman as it approached 3.1, so this would have been a good base to start testing namcap 2.0, too. If it wasn't already out. Shame on me.
Oh man, I *totally* misunderstood the title. I thought you wanted us to combine git repos, not put a new package in a _pacman_ repo!
On Nov 9, 2007 2:35 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007 11:25 AM, bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/11/8, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
There's like 40 things going on in this email.
Yeah, sorry. I like to create confusion :-)
Firstly, the title - why would we combine the git repos? What benefits would we gain?
Ok, I think I must be going crazy. Some time ago I was browsing bug reports/FRs for namcap to see if something had already been reported and I read something (written in August) about the upcoming namcap 2.0 release. What I didn't notice prior to writing this e-mail is that I was *already* using the new version. Now, if I understood correctly the pacman-git repo was born to test pacman as it approached 3.1, so this would have been a good base to start testing namcap 2.0, too. If it wasn't already out. Shame on me.
Oh man, I *totally* misunderstood the title.
I thought you wanted us to combine git repos, not put a new package in a _pacman_ repo!
_______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
I think he means your pacman-git testing repo, if such a thing exists. I think I read about it somewhere.
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
bardo
-
Xilon