[pacman-dev] namcap 2.8.1 and namcap 2.99
Hello, I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following changes: * revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include all reasonable ASCII characters * fix the emptydir rule that did not work * the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a standard variable) * an even bigger test suite. The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms, licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath, scrollkeeper, symlink. In the other branches (python3 in my repo), I have a version of namcap that runs with Python 3 (the bytes vs. string battle was ended prematurely). The plans: * finish the test suite to have at least a test case for each rule * add basic split package support * read tarballs in one pass I'd like to have beta-level intermediate releases (something like version 2.99) because the changes made to the code are becoming quite large, and it needs many testers to spot regressions. -- Rémy.
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following changes: * revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include all reasonable ASCII characters * fix the emptydir rule that did not work * the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a standard variable) * an even bigger test suite.
The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms, licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath, scrollkeeper, symlink. Looks like you didn't push the 2.8 tag to the official repo yet. But 2.8.1 sounds fine.
I've also noticed you are breaking git commit message convention a bit- you should have a one line summary, then a blank line, then your message. See http://projects.archlinux.org/namcap.git/commit/?id=eb13cb04c7a2bc3264c63e6f... for why it looks odd doing it the way you have a few times.
In the other branches (python3 in my repo), I have a version of namcap that runs with Python 3 (the bytes vs. string battle was ended prematurely). The plans: * finish the test suite to have at least a test case for each rule * add basic split package support * read tarballs in one pass Where is this branch? I'm not seeing it in either your repo or the official one. I'd also point out that pushing this to the official repo would get more people to follow it.
I'd like to have beta-level intermediate releases (something like version 2.99) because the changes made to the code are becoming quite large, and it needs many testers to spot regressions. Just please don't let it turn into 2.99-b-324324-asdfasdf like xz did; that is just silly. If you have confidence in your test suite, there is no reason you can't just release it as 3.0 and then have a 3.1 release to fix the problems in that.
-Dan
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, In the other branches (python3 in my repo), I have a version of namcap that runs with Python 3 (the bytes vs. string battle was ended prematurely). The plans: * finish the test suite to have at least a test case for each rule * add basic split package support * read tarballs in one pass Where is this branch? I'm not seeing it in either your repo or the official one. I'd also point out that pushing this to the official repo would get more people to follow it.
I'd like to have beta-level intermediate releases (something like version 2.99) because the changes made to the code are becoming quite large, and it needs many testers to spot regressions.
I should also add- thanks a ton for taking this over! It is good to see it getting some much-needed work and should make it a much more useful tool for developers and all packagers. -Dan
On 2011/2/7 Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following changes: * revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include all reasonable ASCII characters * fix the emptydir rule that did not work * the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a standard variable) * an even bigger test suite.
The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms, licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath, scrollkeeper, symlink. Looks like you didn't push the 2.8 tag to the official repo yet. But 2.8.1 sounds fine.
I've also noticed you are breaking git commit message convention a bit- you should have a one line summary, then a blank line, then your message. See http://projects.archlinux.org/namcap.git/commit/?id=eb13cb04c7a2bc3264c63e6f... for why it looks odd doing it the way you have a few times.
I guess it's too late to correct this unless I arbitrarily completely rewrite the branch. I'll try to pay attention to that later. I think I did git push --all instead of git push --tags. That would explain the absence of the tag in the central repository. -- Rémy.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2011/2/7 Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following changes: * revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include all reasonable ASCII characters * fix the emptydir rule that did not work * the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a standard variable) * an even bigger test suite.
The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms, licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath, scrollkeeper, symlink. Looks like you didn't push the 2.8 tag to the official repo yet. But 2.8.1 sounds fine.
I've also noticed you are breaking git commit message convention a bit- you should have a one line summary, then a blank line, then your message. See http://projects.archlinux.org/namcap.git/commit/?id=eb13cb04c7a2bc3264c63e6f... for why it looks odd doing it the way you have a few times.
I guess it's too late to correct this unless I arbitrarily completely rewrite the branch. I'll try to pay attention to that later. Yes, I didn't mean go back and fix it- you never ever want to rewrite history once you've pushed it public to a main branch.
I think I did git push --all instead of git push --tags. That would explain the absence of the tag in the central repository. Tags have to be explicitly pushed, so --all doesn't do it. I usually just do "git push master" to be explicit, and then "git push --tags".
-Dan
participants (2)
-
Dan McGee
-
Rémy Oudompheng