Le Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:03:38AM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
>
> Changing the number of commits is solving the wrong problem. The problem
> that
> needs to be solved is including upstream commits. That's thoroughly
> uninteresting for a packaging team. Also, it's not just the mails, i
On Friday, October 10, 2014 12:56:41 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:41:47PM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> > On Friday, October 10, 2014 11:08:53 Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 07:57:48PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > > [..]
> > > > Presumably "one
Le Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:41:47PM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> On Friday, October 10, 2014 11:08:53 Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 07:57:48PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > Presumably "one" is the one who set up the git repos. I, for another one,
> > > wou
On Friday, October 10, 2014 11:08:53 Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 07:57:48PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > [..]
> > Presumably "one" is the one who set up the git repos. I, for another one,
> > would really appreciate it if someone would take care of this.
>
> Don't they al
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 07:57:48PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> [..]
> Presumably "one" is the one who set up the git repos. I, for another one,
> would really appreciate it if someone would take care of this.
Don't they all share the hook script?
--
Kind regards,
Loong Jin
signature.asc
On Friday, October 10, 2014 00:22:42 Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 9 October 2014 20:57, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On October 9, 2014 10:43:38 AM EDT, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >>On Oct 09, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>>Upstream commits are off topic.
> >>
> >>Agreed. There's no
On 9 October 2014 20:57, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On October 9, 2014 10:43:38 AM EDT, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>On Oct 09, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>>>Upstream commits are off topic.
>>
>>Agreed. There's no reason why we need notifications of upstream
>>commits,
>>though I don't
On October 9, 2014 10:43:38 AM EDT, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>On Oct 09, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>Upstream commits are off topic.
>
>Agreed. There's no reason why we need notifications of upstream
>commits,
>though I don't know if it's possible to filter them out.
>
>>I'm probably
On Oct 09, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>Upstream commits are off topic.
Agreed. There's no reason why we need notifications of upstream commits,
though I don't know if it's possible to filter them out.
>I'm probably going to give up on hanging out on #debian-python once we get
>mo
On October 9, 2014 5:36:02 AM EDT, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
>> On 2014-10-09 10:02, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > I fixed the default configuration in setup-repository to limit to
>20
>> > commits per push as a maximum. And I also limited the size of
>ind
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2014-10-09 10:02, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I fixed the default configuration in setup-repository to limit to 20
> > commits per push as a maximum. And I also limited the size of individual
> > commit emails to 1000 lines.
>
> I wonder, whether s
> I wonder, whether some kind of digest function would be possible
> and useful?
how's getting 1 email with 100 upstream commits different to getting
100 emails with upstream commits? (other than it's easier to read these
100 emails and a bit easier to delete digest one)
--
Piotr Ożarowski
12 matches
Mail list logo
