On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

Just a reminder: do not forget to remove unstable repo from pacman.conf SVN first. In addition, probably it would be nice to mention the last two patches in NEWS too.

The unstable repo should probably be removed from abs.conf as well, even though it did not seem to hurt. (of course that concerns abs and not pacman, but it is still on topic here, as far as I know). Otherwise, which last two patches were you referring to? For example I don't know if you were looking at master branch, or toofishes' working one, etc.

2008/7/27 Xavier :

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

Just a reminder: do not forget to remove unstable repo from pacman.conf SVN first. In addition, probably it would be nice to mention the last two patches in NEWS too.

The unstable repo should probably be removed from abs.conf as well, even though it did not seem to hurt. (of course that concerns abs and not pacman, but it is still on topic here, as far as I know).

Otherwise, which last two patches were you referring to? For example I don't know if you were looking at master branch, or toofishes' working one, etc.

Good catch! I was referring to 2 pactest patches after the NEWS file patch in Dan's working tree. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Nagy Gabor wrote:

2.) "- fix removing multiple items in dependency chain" I think this refers to 59295081982b33640f4e16589ef281872da540b5. In this case we can remove this, -Ru is a celebrated new feature of 3.2, so this problem existed in git only (after ~pkgname_pkg_cmp kill:-P).

That referred to your fix for remove052.py (ad54b286)

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Nagy Gabor wrote:

I also have some _very minor_ suggestions to NEWS file: 1.) "- avoid adding duplicate target names" This sounds strange, maybe "-avoid adding duplicate targets" sounds better (in fact, different packages (from different repos) can have the same package names, so the original line is more precise, so I dunno)

If it is confusing, let's just remove it. I doubt anyone cares about that anyway.

2.) "- fix removing multiple items in dependency chain" I think this refers to 59295081982b33640f4e16589ef281872da540b5. In this case we can remove this, -Ru is a celebrated new feature of 3.2, so this problem existed in git only (after ~pkgname_pkg_cmp kill:-P).

I think this rather refers to ad54b286802fd739532c9fd6f3bc6c7c431bddf4

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Xavier wrote:

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Dan McGee wrote:

...

I will send a few patches from my working branch here for review, but does anyone have objections to anything I've included on it? If not, this will all go to master with a 3.2.0 tag soon to follow. http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/wo...

Well, the only thing I see is my two display_targets patches breaking gettext strings : http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfae7bdd524... "Targets:" -> "Targets (%d):" "Remove:" -> "Remove (%d):" Ha, I hadn't even realized this. Oops. Can you mark your patches [PATCH/3.2] or [PATCH/future] or something next time? I wanted to ask you which patches were for what, but you were sleeping obviously.

http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=8877c88defd... "\nDo you want to remove these packages?" -> "Do you want to remove these packages?"

However, as you can see, these 3 changes can easily be replicated to every translations by anyone. If you also think these patches are a good idea for the 3.2 release, I can do the necessary translation changes.

Is it worth it, or just wait for 3.2.1? Up to you, but if we want to do this now I need someone else to write the patch. -Dan