On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/04/2018 03:58 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Yeah, but since it's many thousands of packages, I think maybe you
> didn't have to send the whole list?
I like that he sent the whole list, then I can search for my username
and check if I am on the list.
I understand why it could be convenient to see. If I'm looking at my
email on a phone, I don't personally care to have my data plan eaten
by such messages. It's a text based email list, we don't post binaries
here for just the reason of bandwidth.I suggest that a link to the
text list would have been more effective.
> It's been useful for legibility, even it's no longer
> it really hurting anyone at this point? And is it worth the thousands
> of .spec file changes to aggressively clear?
I like to use other packages for inspiration on how things are solved,
so it would be helpful for me that packages are tend to follow good
That is sound reasoning. Consistency of formatting has its point, just
as consistent whitespace use its point, as well. Is it worth all the
changes in all he spec files?
> Also, it's not trivia to tell people "oh, my script is
> but you should please check many thousands of packages for me!!!" How
> about, instead, posting the script so we can check the syntax first?
There are no need for snide remarks, what about just asking for the script?
It did come off as snide. In this case, I think it was a level of
justified snide. It's a dangerous approach that I'd like to
discourage. Post the code, especially since the original link to the
code mentioned in the first message is likely to lose its provenance
as the project goes on. Post the current, in-use version of the code.
Peace is good. I'd feel more peaceful if the final version of the code
being used is posted or linked to, to help ensure its provenance for
something touching so many files. Please?