XSF Editor Team - 2017-01-18


  1. Flow

    SamWhited: Shall we simply tell peter waher to submit the changes via mail?

  2. Kev

    Did I miss context?

  3. Flow

    Kev: see standards@

  4. Kev

    Nothing's jumping out at me there as being from Peter Waher.

  5. Kev

    What's the rough timestamp?

  6. Flow

    https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-January/031966.html

  7. Kev

    Oh, last few minutes. Spam trap then, mabye. Thanks.

  8. 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" :)

  9. Flow

    Kev: patches and/or full xeps?

  10. Flow

    as in "the full xep of a new version of an existing xep"

  11. Kev

    Oh, that's ugly as sin.

  12. Flow

    Is it?

  13. Kev

    But as long as he's not screwing around with formatting and stuff, I guess that's fine.

  14. Flow

    does it matter if we apply a patch or simply copy the submited file over the existing?

  15. Flow

    I mean yes of course, patches would be better

  16. Kev

    It dosn't, really.

  17. Kev

    I can't type this morning :(

  18. Kev

    I replied.

  19. Kev

    It was caught in the spamtrap.

  20. 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.

  21. SamWhited

    Oh well, if he sends smaller patches or someone else is willing to do it I guess it will be fine.

  22. Kev

    If his explanation of the reason wasn't really the reason, you should reply saying so :)

  23. SamWhited

    Yah, I'll reply when I get to the office

  24. Kev

    Thanks. I'm trying to find the PR now.

  25. Kev

    I should probably not have taken his explanation at face value, sorry.

  26. Flow

    Kev: SamWhited: So we *do* reject submissions with a lot of non-changes (whitespace only, etc)?

  27. Kev

    Oh, if someone submits a stupid patch, we'd reject it, sure.

  28. Kev

    I'm not sure if whitespace counts, but certainly if it did other stupid things.

  29. 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

  30. Kev

    I'm still trying to find the PR.

  31. Flow

    Guess it's a thin line what to accept.

  32. Flow

    Kev involved:PeterWaher

  33. Kev

    That gives results for you?

  34. Kev

    It doesn't seem to for me, just two entries is source files.

  35. Flow

    involves:PeterWaher

  36. Flow

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/169

  37. Kev

    Ah, ta.

  38. Kev

    Oh, he wasn't kidding.

  39. Kev

    He really can't use Git.

  40. Flow

    and we shouldn't require git for xep submission

  41. Kev

    Maybe the best thing to do is just suggest that if he works with any developers to ask one of them to help.

  42. Flow

    that PR doesn't look to bad to me

  43. Flow

    the only strange thing appears to be the merge commit at the ned

  44. Kev

    The merge commit looks weird. Other than that, it doesn't look too bad to me.

  45. Kev

    Although all the dates need fixing, at least.

  46. SamWhited

    Ah yah, that's not too aweful. Maybe it was more the size of the thing

  47. 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.