Re: PyKF5 bindings generator improvements out for review.

Shaheed Haque <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.kde.devel.bindings
Message-ID <CAHAc2jccHBQaRjkxZq1DNhSPZGCaTh6FirveQ4azepUUofuuKw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Steve,

I've reviewed what got merged from PR2 and PR3, and reworked PR4 into what
I hope is a much more manageable form. The results are in PR9:

https://github.com/ShaheedHaque/extra-cmake-modules/pull/9

As the comments say, I recommend reviewing the changes commit-by-commit,
and providing comments directly via github. When we are happy/ready, I'll
do the merge to KDE. I'll then redo the other PRs in turn, and bring them
back for review: in other words, for now, please only consider this one
pull request PR9.


On 4 February 2017 at 18:01, Shaheed Haque <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for taking a look. I'll take another look at the PR4: I think I can
> split a few bits out in a more granular fashion and that should make it
> easier for you.
>
> That said, I would prefer to take the PRs in the order I posted them
> because otherwise it is hard for me to track what is and is not "done",
> especially as you sometimes end up changing what actually gets committed to
> KDE/master; that effectively creates yet another fork for me to have to
> reconcile. Ideally, I'd like us to use the PR process and let me do the
> commit to KDE when we are happy: the whole point of having all the branches
> and PRs split out the way they are is to make this tractable and to allow
> me to incorporate your comments in a systematic manner. As we deal with
> each PR, I can rebase and rewrite the subsequent PRs.
>
> I hope that sounds OK.
>
> Shaheed
>
> On 4 February 2017 at 12:09, Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>
>> > Simple, short and noiseless commits are easy to review, so please see if
>> > you can follow suit there.
>>
>> In particular, I tried to review the commit "Rule database structure
>> changes", but it seems to contain lots of unrelated things such as
>> outputting 'discarded' instead of 'suppressed', and lots more. That is all
>> noise and makes the commit hard to review.
>>
>> Please reduce that commit to the change in rules_SipTest.py plus whatever
>> minimum change is needed to the python code to support that. The rest of
>> the
>> changes can either be follow-ups or can appear before the API change
>> commit.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Steve.
>>
>
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.