Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   ArchLinux Pacman Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-pacman-development/)
-   -   namcap 2.8.1 and namcap 2.99 (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-pacman-development/485908-namcap-2-8-1-namcap-2-99-a.html)

Rémy Oudompheng 02-06-2011 10:56 PM

namcap 2.8.1 and namcap 2.99
 
Hello,

I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the
namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following
changes:
* revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include
all reasonable ASCII characters
* fix the emptydir rule that did not work
* the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a
standard variable)
* an even bigger test suite.

The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms,
licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath,
scrollkeeper, symlink.

In the other branches (python3 in my repo), I have a version of namcap
that runs with Python 3 (the bytes vs. string battle was ended
prematurely). The plans:
* finish the test suite to have at least a test case for each rule
* add basic split package support
* read tarballs in one pass

I'd like to have beta-level intermediate releases (something like
version 2.99) because the changes made to the code are becoming quite
large, and it needs many testers to spot regressions.

--
Rémy.

Dan McGee 02-07-2011 03:18 PM

namcap 2.8.1 and namcap 2.99
 
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
<remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the
> namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following
> changes:
> * revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include
> all reasonable ASCII characters
> * fix the emptydir rule that did not work
> * the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a
> standard variable)
> * an even bigger test suite.
>
> The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms,
> licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath,
> scrollkeeper, symlink.
Looks like you didn't push the 2.8 tag to the official repo yet. But
2.8.1 sounds fine.

I've also noticed you are breaking git commit message convention a
bit- you should have a one line summary, then a blank line, then your
message. See http://projects.archlinux.org/namcap.git/commit/?id=eb13cb04c7a2bc3264c63e6fa882633a0a54e773
for why it looks odd doing it the way you have a few times.

> In the other branches (python3 in my repo), I have a version of namcap
> that runs with Python 3 (the bytes vs. string battle was ended
> prematurely). The plans:
> * finish the test suite to have at least a test case for each rule
> * add basic split package support
> * read tarballs in one pass
Where is this branch? I'm not seeing it in either your repo or the
official one. I'd also point out that pushing this to the official
repo would get more people to follow it.

> I'd like to have beta-level intermediate releases (something like
> version 2.99) because the changes made to the code are becoming quite
> large, and it needs many testers to spot regressions.
Just please don't let it turn into 2.99-b-324324-asdfasdf like xz did;
that is just silly. If you have confidence in your test suite, there
is no reason you can't just release it as 3.0 and then have a 3.1
release to fix the problems in that.

-Dan

Dan McGee 02-07-2011 03:32 PM

namcap 2.8.1 and namcap 2.99
 
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
> <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> In the other branches (python3 in my repo), I have a version of namcap
>> that runs with Python 3 (the bytes vs. string battle was ended
>> prematurely). The plans:
>> * finish the test suite to have at least a test case for each rule
>> * add basic split package support
>> * read tarballs in one pass
> Where is this branch? I'm not seeing it in either your repo or the
> official one. I'd also point out that pushing this to the official
> repo would get more people to follow it.
>
>> I'd like to have beta-level intermediate releases (something like
>> version 2.99) because the changes made to the code are becoming quite
>> large, and it needs many testers to spot regressions.

I should also add- thanks a ton for taking this over! It is good to
see it getting some much-needed work and should make it a much more
useful tool for developers and all packagers.

-Dan

Rémy Oudompheng 02-07-2011 05:53 PM

namcap 2.8.1 and namcap 2.99
 
On 2011/2/7 Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
> <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the
>> namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following
>> changes:
>> * revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include
>> all reasonable ASCII characters
>> * fix the emptydir rule that did not work
>> * the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a
>> standard variable)
>> * an even bigger test suite.
>>
>> The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms,
>> licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath,
>> scrollkeeper, symlink.
> Looks like you didn't push the 2.8 tag to the official repo yet. But
> 2.8.1 sounds fine.
>
> I've also noticed you are breaking git commit message convention a
> bit- you should have a one line summary, then a blank line, then your
> message. See http://projects.archlinux.org/namcap.git/commit/?id=eb13cb04c7a2bc3264c63e6fa882633a0a54e773
> for why it looks odd doing it the way you have a few times.

I guess it's too late to correct this unless I arbitrarily completely
rewrite the branch. I'll try to pay attention to that later.

I think I did git push --all instead of git push --tags. That would
explain the absence of the tag in the central repository.

--
Rémy.

Dan McGee 02-07-2011 06:14 PM

namcap 2.8.1 and namcap 2.99
 
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
<remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011/2/7 Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
>> <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the
>>> namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following
>>> changes:
>>> * revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include
>>> all reasonable ASCII characters
>>> * fix the emptydir rule that did not work
>>> * the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a
>>> standard variable)
>>> * an even bigger test suite.
>>>
>>> The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms,
>>> licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath,
>>> scrollkeeper, symlink.
>> Looks like you didn't push the 2.8 tag to the official repo yet. But
>> 2.8.1 sounds fine.
>>
>> I've also noticed you are breaking git commit message convention a
>> bit- you should have a one line summary, then a blank line, then your
>> message. See http://projects.archlinux.org/namcap.git/commit/?id=eb13cb04c7a2bc3264c63e6fa882633a0a54e773
>> for why it looks odd doing it the way you have a few times.
>
> I guess it's too late to correct this unless I arbitrarily completely
> rewrite the branch. I'll try to pay attention to that later.
Yes, I didn't mean go back and fix it- you never ever want to rewrite
history once you've pushed it public to a main branch.

> I think I did git push --all instead of git push --tags. That would
> explain the absence of the tag in the central repository.
Tags have to be explicitly pushed, so --all doesn't do it. I usually
just do "git push master" to be explicit, and then "git push --tags".

-Dan


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.