[pacman-dev] pacman 3.1 release ?

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 11:23:53 EDT 2007

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 04:10:35PM +0200, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> Well, I don't want to hurt you, but my list would be:
> 1. review/apply/write bugfixes
> 2. add new features/code clean-up/improvements...
> I'm sure that you are busy, but you may add git access to other "trusted" devels
> (1 vote for Xavier) to help you. I'm not familiar with pacman developing
> philosophy, but as I see, only you and Aaron are the active devels who have git
> access.

There is no need for that, and I wouldn't want it anyway.
I push my own changes to my git tree, and when they are good/simple enough,
they are merged very fast.
Maybe even too fast sometimes, I have messed up several things recently :
1) http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git;a=commit;h=d34b2c4ed84bc40f4a895846785481fad88116a2
one of the newline fix there is actually a newline breakage
2) http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git;a=commit;h=26441cf65ca10d4bf218203df5db5e8a7270787b
I noticed there was an issue there, but didn't notice it was done twice..
It's a bit stupid to require 2 commits for this, but well :)
3) http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=transaction
it took me at least 4 commits to get this right (hopefully it is now, I'm not
even sure), the last one making all the previous ones obsolete.

So you shouldn't trust me, I can't even get my own stuff right, even for
simple things :)
Your patch are much more complicated, especially the last two big ones : fix
for sync 1003 and conflicts resolving cleanup.
I've spent hours trying to understand the existing pacman code edited by your
patches, and it seems I'm still far from understand it perfectly.
I have a basic understanding of it, and how you changed them. It does look
good to me, so I pushed them to my tree, with the associated comments :

About the resolveconflict stuff, I've been willing to rework it a bit, with
my suggestions there :
But I only fixed the two little gcc warnings. I think some refactoring would
be nice, but it isn't critical.
I still have another question about it, but I'll reply to your previous mail

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list