Re: GSoC 2019 [Buildbot ideas]

A standalone npm package can be kept will sample components written in React and Vue, with environment variables specifying which framework is being used. Something that I didn't understand: We have the buildbot-react-plugin-boilerplate, which we add to our master.cfg. Now there would be several v

Re: GSoC 2019 [Buildbot ideas]

I think this plugin can reside in buildbot/www/ directory, and it would be pretty similar to other views (except the fact that it will be a plugin and act as a way to write more views using react/vue; it won't be a view itself). Developers may

Re: GSoC Proposal

On 2019-03-30 03:35, KARAN SHETH wrote: > I had to update a bit of upt-cpan as it was not parsing description properly. Patches are welcome:) You can connect to https://framagit.org/upt/upt-cpan using your Github account, by the way. Cyril > Thanks, > Karan Sheth > > -- > >

Re: GSoC Proposal

On 2019-03-28 22:56, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > Support for checksums has been implemented recently: > > https://framagit.org/upt/upt/commit/3f634370bbb80904411ff298d2b79e35c7591d23 > > Yes, the file would be downloaded and the checksum would be calculated, but > this would be done by upt (if som

Re: GSoC Proposal

Hey, On Mar 29 2019, at 3:26 am, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > > master_sites git+https://github.com/request/request.git > > This line looks a bit suspicious. If the files live on github, we might want > to use the github PortGroup anyway, but let's leave that detail for later ... yeah the link was

Re: tickets about "no destroot found" error

Hi Josh, Sorry for the delay. I will try to remember that. Cheers! Frank > On Mar 25, 2019, at 5:08 PM, Joshua Root wrote: > > Please mark these as duplicates of #55445, rather than invalid. It's a > valid bug even though we don't know how to reproduce it and it has an > easy workaround. >

Re: GSoC 2019 [Buildbot ideas]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 09:18, Pierre Tardy wrote: > > My fear is that this is part of the many stretch goals, and this is beginning > to be very optimistic schedule. > I think it is best to make a great finished GSoC rather than lots of very > cool but unfinished mini projects. I would say that

Re: GSoC 2019 [Buildbot ideas]

Yes, I agree. On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:48 PM Pierre Tardy wrote: > My fear is that this is part of the many stretch goals, and this is > beginning to be very optimistic schedule. > I think it is best to make a great finished GSoC rather than lots of very > cool but unfinished mini projects. > >

GSoC 2019 [Phase out dependency on Xcode]

Hi Marcus, I’m a final-year student from University of Indonesia interested in contributing to MacPort, and I’m working on my proposal right now. I’d like to ask about the Phase out dependency on Xcode project idea on the Wiki page. Just making sure of the flow: user/maintainer installs a Port

Re: GSoC 2019 [Buildbot ideas]

My fear is that this is part of the many stretch goals, and this is beginning to be very optimistic schedule. I think it is best to make a great finished GSoC rather than lots of very cool but unfinished mini projects. >From my experience, I'd say settuping securing and optimising macos precommit

Re: how to deal with large data files

On Mar 27, 2019, at 23:12, Joshua Root wrote: > As a port, even if it's not mirrored, it's still going to be taking up > gigabytes per OS version on the builders I would indeed want to avoid keeping it installed on the buildbot workers; see https://trac.macports.org/ticket/57464 > and in th