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. >> > >