sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion)
- From: "Mathieu L." <lejatorn AT smgl.homelinux.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion)
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:36:19 +0200
--- Begin Message ---Agreed. I don't want more restrictions but I'd gladly see us loose the
- From: "Mathieu L." <lejatorn AT sourcemage.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion)
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:15:03 +0200
extra spacings in DEPENDS.
I'd also vote for switching to tabs if the question were to be raised.
Now, when do we switch from bash to rc already? ;P
Mathieu
--- Begin Message ---I agree with David. As far as the proposals go, I support the one(s) that
- From: Jaka Kranjc <smgl AT lynxlynx.info>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion)
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:48:59 +0200
loose the restrictions. Function before form.
As I said many a time, I don't like cosmetic changes, especially when they
are
mixed with real changes in commits. That DEPENDS backslash/&& alignment is
problematic in this case - one configure flag changes its length and
potentially the whole file needs to be reformatted.
LP
--
We cannot command nature except by obeying her. --Sir Francis Bacon
Have a sourcerous day! www.sourcemage.org
Attachment: signature.asc
_______________________________________________
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
-
[SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
Vlad Glagolev, 08/28/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
David Kowis, 08/28/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 08/28/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
Eric Sandall, 08/28/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
Jeremy Blosser, 08/29/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion), Robin Cook, 08/29/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
Jeremy Blosser, 08/29/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
Eric Sandall, 08/28/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion), Jaka Kranjc, 08/29/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 08/28/2009
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion), Mathieu L., 08/29/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] The Great E-mails: part 5 (Conclusion),
David Kowis, 08/28/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.