On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:19:35AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I don't think that a *series* of patches is useful, at least for the
> integration in the main branch. The use of window structures should
> be seen as a single feature as a whole. Thus a single commit should
> be fine.
>
i won't a
On 2016-05-03 08:45:40 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > What I've said is that the work is done in a separate branch (a feature
> > branch). Then, all that needs to be done is a merge to the main branch
> > seen as a single comm
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> What I've said is that the work is done in a separate branch (a feature
> branch). Then, all that needs to be done is a merge to the main branch
> seen as a single commit (e.g., for git, "git merge --no-ff"). That way,
> one doesn't
On 2016-04-30 14:30:52 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:12:25PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2016-04-25 13:18:53 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > Rewriting the history is useful only
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:12:25PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-04-25 13:18:53 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Rewriting the history is useful only when [...]
> > >
> > the whole argumentation is besides the poi
On 2016-04-25 13:18:53 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Rewriting the history is useful only when [...]
> >
> the whole argumentation is besides the point, as we're talking about
> non-mainline branches.
No, that's the point,
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Rewriting the history is useful only when [...]
>
the whole argumentation is besides the point, as we're talking about
non-mainline branches.
> Note that the work in the feature branch should really be kept. This
> can be useful i
On 2016-04-24 11:46:53 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 06:01:55PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > As I mentioned earlier, I was still iterating the patches and I posted
> > them early just for comment. Pushing to a public repos would make it
> > difficult to modify t
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 06:01:55PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> As I mentioned earlier, I was still iterating the patches and I posted
> them early just for comment. Pushing to a public repos would make it
> difficult to modify the patches afterwards.
>
the ability to easily discard history
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 02:57:09AM +0100, Richard Russon wrote:
> I want to help.
> I offer code. No, not interested.
> I offer help. No, not interested.
Really?
https://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/80926cec6d41
https://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/1fb2a924a7c0
https://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/cbf073e5e
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 06:01:55PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Whether intentional or not, the condescension and near whininess
Certainly not intentional.
> I'm sorry posted patches and the customs of this list are so unpleasant
> for you.
I'm trying to offer suggestions to make developme
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:15:48PM +0100, Richard Russon wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:27:06PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
>
> > Regardless, I'm not convinced my under-development patch queues belong
> > in a public repos. I'd like to know what's wrong with just posting the
> > patches
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:27:06PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Regardless, I'm not convinced my under-development patch queues belong
> in a public repos. I'd like to know what's wrong with just posting the
> patches to the list when I'm ready to.
Well now we have a good example. You have
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 01:51:49AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-04-22 12:27:06 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > and they even show up in 'hg branches':
>
> No, according to "hg help glossary":
>
> Head, closed branch
> A changeset that marks a head as no longer interesti
On 2016-04-22 12:27:06 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> I'm hardly a Mercurial expert either, but closed branches are still
> around,
Well, that's a VCS, so that's normal that there are some traces.
Otherwise you need an unversioned concept, such as bookmarks.
> and they even show up in 'hg bran
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:13:31AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-04-21 09:17:04 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > Once something it pushed up to a clonable Mercurial repository, there is
> > no going back. Branches in Mercurial are different than Git, as they
> > are non-removable.
>
On 2016-04-21 09:17:04 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Once something it pushed up to a clonable Mercurial repository, there is
> no going back. Branches in Mercurial are different than Git, as they
> are non-removable.
What is the problem? I don't know Mercurial very well, but wouldn't
closing
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:34:27PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
> I think what Richard meant was, to do the changes in a branch of the
> public mutt repository instead of your local patch queue so that anyone
> can follow/participate/contribute.
Thanks Eike. I think my confusion is because the patch
Hi Kevin,
On Tuesday, 2016-04-19 15:52:21 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:22:34PM +0100, Richard Russon wrote:
> > Can you put the changes into a public repo that people can fork?
>
> Perhaps you could elaborate about what you're thinking about?
I think what Richard
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:22:34PM +0100, Richard Russon wrote:
> Well done. It's an impressive start.
Thanks, I have a few more patches to go, and after that the metrics
should be much lower.
> Can you put the changes into a public repo that people can fork?
Right now, I'm still iterating the
Hi Kevin,
> I am still in the middle of making these changes
Well done. It's an impressive start.
Here's a very reassuring metric.
Count of uses of ncurses global variables:
$ find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep -who -e COLS -e LINES | wc -l
Before: 119
After: 57
Can you put the changes int
I am still in the middle of making these changes, but I wanted to send
what I had to the list right now for any comments. This weekend, I'll
add 2 or 3 more patches for the last few changes and add them to this
thread.
It's a lot of patches, but that's because I've tried to keep each patch
small.
22 matches
Mail list logo
