[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gpsd-dev] Five More patches

From: Gary E. Miller
Subject: Re: [gpsd-dev] Five More patches
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:51:21 -0700

Yo Fred!

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Fred Wright <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 17:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > Fred Wright <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  
> > > Sending as attachments as requested.  
> >
> > You are write except for the 's'.  One attachment per email is
> > nicer so people can comment on each one.  
> OK, though depending on the email client, commenting on patches sent
> as attachments may not work very easily, anyway.

Well, works for me, and I'm the one pushing today.

>  What's the
> motivation for switching to attachments, other than in cases where
> it's necessary for transparency?  It's certainly more work on the
> sending side, since it's not compatible with "git send-email".

Your emailed patches to me where corrupted.  Your attachments are not.

So go with what works.  Feel free to also include in the email for

> > in the contrib/README about what it does?  
> Other than the comment that's already in the SConstruct itself?  It
> appears that the README is philosophically talking just about
> programs.

To me the README is about the whole directory, but I'll take what I get,
or don't.

> > It is build automatically, just not built by this SConstruct  
> Yeah, though given that the comment was *in* this SConstruct, I
> thought that was clear. :-) The main motivation was to explain why
> someone might get build failures when running this SConstruct from a
> "clean" state.

Who reads SContruct?  Nice if all you need to know is in the README.

Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
        address@hidden  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

Attachment: pgpTcx_PGhuCV.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]