[aur-dev] [PATCH] Updated README for local AUR installation

[Loui Chang]

On Tue 16 Mar 2010 15:10 -0700, Thayer Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Thayer Williams <thayerw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue 16 Feb 2010 08:20 -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> >>> I've updated the web/README to make the instructions a bit clearer on
> >>> setting up a test environment of the AUR.
> >>>
> >>> Also, I plan to submit several patches for HTML/template updates over
> >>> the next couple of weeks so please let me know if this patch format is
> >>> not correct.
> >>
> >> The patch format is fine.
> >>
> >> The problem with the patch itself is that you're changing things that
> >> don't need to be changed. There's a lot of unnecessary reformatting.
> >> Seems like you prefer a wider text width.
> >>
> >> People needing help on setting up an AUR development environment should
> >> probably be sending mail to aur-dev only, not aur-general.
> >>
> >> Please try to keep unnecessary changes to a minimum.
> >> Thank you for looking into the code and trying to improve the AUR.
> >
> > Sorry Loui, I figured since I was rewriting the bulk of the file that
> > I'd update the rest for consistency's sake.  The new instructions take
> > a bit more room than before so I expanded the text width to be in line
> > with the standard (used loosely) 80 columns, shortening the length
> > again.
> >
> > FWIW the HACKING doc says the coding style is 79 columns or less and
> > is itself written with a larger text width.
> >
> > I can submit a follow-up path removing the aur-general link if desired.
> 
> I'm bumping this as I didn't receive a response and the README
> instructions are broken as-is.
> 
> I understand the rationale to avoid unnecessary changes, but as
> mentioned many of the instructions had to be changed anyway and this
> brings the document in line with the HACKING guidelines.
> 
> This is a trivial change that should serve to improve participation in
> the project.

I was expecting a follow up patch incorporating my suggestions.
I don't particularly see the README as broken, but I am willing to have
it changed to make it clearer of course.

Adding a line instructing users how to use pacman should hardly be
necessary, either. I hope.

You're right that the code should fit within 79 or fewer columns. The
README fits that specification perfectly. There is no need to change it.

If you can follow up with another patch that keep changes to a minimum,
I'll gladly review it. I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, but if
I readily accept this kind of patch it may make my job very difficult
where it shouldn't be.

Thank you for inquiring about this again.