XSF Editor Team - 2017-01-18


  1. SamWhited has left
  2. SamWhited has left
  3. Flow has joined
  4. Flow has left
  5. Flow has joined
  6. Flow has joined
  7. Flow has joined
  8. Flow SamWhited: Shall we simply tell peter waher to submit the changes via mail?
  9. Kev Did I miss context?
  10. Flow Kev: see standards@
  11. Kev Nothing's jumping out at me there as being from Peter Waher.
  12. Kev What's the rough timestamp?
  13. Flow https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-January/031966.html
  14. Kev Oh, last few minutes. Spam trap then, mabye. Thanks.
  15. Kev I'd be inclined to reply "Submitting Git patches via email is allowable, as it's always been, as long as they're appropriately split" :)
  16. Flow Kev: patches and/or full xeps?
  17. Flow as in "the full xep of a new version of an existing xep"
  18. Kev Oh, that's ugly as sin.
  19. Flow Is it?
  20. Kev But as long as he's not screwing around with formatting and stuff, I guess that's fine.
  21. Flow does it matter if we apply a patch or simply copy the submited file over the existing?
  22. Flow I mean yes of course, patches would be better
  23. Kev It dosn't, really.
  24. Kev I can't type this morning :(
  25. Kev I replied.
  26. Kev It was caught in the spamtrap.
  27. Holger has left
  28. SamWhited Hmm… that had nothing to do with having several commits in a single file, his diff was just so convoluted it was hard to review.
  29. SamWhited Oh well, if he sends smaller patches or someone else is willing to do it I guess it will be fine.
  30. Kev If his explanation of the reason wasn't really the reason, you should reply saying so :)
  31. SamWhited Yah, I'll reply when I get to the office
  32. Kev Thanks. I'm trying to find the PR now.
  33. Kev I should probably not have taken his explanation at face value, sorry.
  34. Flow Kev: SamWhited: So we *do* reject submissions with a lot of non-changes (whitespace only, etc)?
  35. SamWhited has left
  36. Kev Oh, if someone submits a stupid patch, we'd reject it, sure.
  37. SamWhited has joined
  38. Kev I'm not sure if whitespace counts, but certainly if it did other stupid things.
  39. SamWhited It also had a ton or git weirdness that I didn't want to unwind, IIRC, but you can see for yourself, maybe someone else will be okay dealing with it
  40. Kev I'm still trying to find the PR.
  41. Flow Guess it's a thin line what to accept.
  42. Flow Kev involved:PeterWaher
  43. Kev That gives results for you?
  44. Kev It doesn't seem to for me, just two entries is source files.
  45. Flow involves:PeterWaher
  46. Flow https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/169
  47. Kev Ah, ta.
  48. Kev Oh, he wasn't kidding.
  49. Kev He really can't use Git.
  50. Flow and we shouldn't require git for xep submission
  51. Kev Maybe the best thing to do is just suggest that if he works with any developers to ask one of them to help.
  52. Flow that PR doesn't look to bad to me
  53. Flow the only strange thing appears to be the merge commit at the ned
  54. Kev The merge commit looks weird. Other than that, it doesn't look too bad to me.
  55. Kev Although all the dates need fixing, at least.
  56. SamWhited Ah yah, that's not too aweful. Maybe it was more the size of the thing
  57. Kev I think in this case just cleaning it up and submitting might be best. I'm not convinced that whatever he does next is going to be any easer for us to deal with.
  58. Holger has left
  59. Holger has left
  60. SamWhited has left
  61. Kev has left
  62. SamWhited has left
  63. Flow has left
  64. SamWhited has left
  65. Kev has left
  66. SamWhited has left
  67. Flow has joined
  68. Kev has joined
  69. Kev has left
  70. Kev has joined
  71. Holger has left
  72. SamWhited has left
  73. Kev has left
  74. Kev has joined
  75. winfried has left
  76. Flow has left
  77. Kev has left
  78. Kev has joined
  79. SamWhited has left