jhrozek's pull request #5: "Miscellanous patches for the sssd-secrets responder" was opened
PR body: The first patch just makes an internal function static. The other just makes the use of a config section more uniform. We could go one way or the other, I don't really mind which, but we shouldn't use two ways to access the same data.
See the full pull-request at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/5
On (19/08/16 10:25), sssd-github-notification@fedorahosted.org wrote:
jhrozek's pull request #5: "Miscellanous patches for the sssd-secrets responder" was opened
PR body: The first patch just makes an internal function static. The other just makes the use of a config section more uniform. We could go one way or the other, I don't really mind which, but we shouldn't use two ways to access the same data.
See the full pull-request at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/5
Would it be possible to sent patches in mail? samba does it. It would be a hint for me wheter it worth to review a patch in web interface.
LS
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:39:27AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:25), sssd-github-notification@fedorahosted.org wrote:
jhrozek's pull request #5: "Miscellanous patches for the sssd-secrets responder" was opened
PR body: The first patch just makes an internal function static. The other just makes the use of a config section more uniform. We could go one way or the other, I don't really mind which, but we shouldn't use two ways to access the same data.
See the full pull-request at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/5
Would it be possible to sent patches in mail? samba does it. It would be a hint for me wheter it worth to review a patch in web interface.
It's possible, but not implemented. I would like to send a separate mail about the proposed workflow anyway.
On (19/08/16 10:41), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:39:27AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:25), sssd-github-notification@fedorahosted.org wrote:
jhrozek's pull request #5: "Miscellanous patches for the sssd-secrets responder" was opened
PR body: The first patch just makes an internal function static. The other just makes the use of a config section more uniform. We could go one way or the other, I don't really mind which, but we shouldn't use two ways to access the same data.
See the full pull-request at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/5
Would it be possible to sent patches in mail? samba does it. It would be a hint for me wheter it worth to review a patch in web interface.
It's possible, but not implemented. I would like to send a separate mail about the proposed workflow anyway.
Then please attach mails to the thread :-)
LS
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:20 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:41), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:39:27AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:25), sssd-github-notification@fedorahosted.org wrote:
jhrozek's pull request #5: "Miscellanous patches for the sssd-secrets responder" was opened
PR body: The first patch just makes an internal function static. The other just makes the use of a config section more uniform. We could go one way or the other, I don't really mind which, but we shouldn't use two ways to access the same data.
See the full pull-request at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/5
Would it be possible to sent patches in mail? samba does it. It would be a hint for me wheter it worth to review a patch in web interface.
It's possible, but not implemented. I would like to send a separate mail about the proposed workflow anyway.
Then please attach mails to the thread :-)
+1
Simo.
On (19/08/16 09:38), Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:20 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:41), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:39:27AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:25), sssd-github-notification@fedorahosted.org wrote:
jhrozek's pull request #5: "Miscellanous patches for the sssd-secrets responder" was opened
PR body: The first patch just makes an internal function static. The other just makes the use of a config section more uniform. We could go one way or the other, I don't really mind which, but we shouldn't use two ways to access the same data.
See the full pull-request at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/5
Would it be possible to sent patches in mail? samba does it. It would be a hint for me wheter it worth to review a patch in web interface.
It's possible, but not implemented. I would like to send a separate mail about the proposed workflow anyway.
Then please attach mails to the thread :-)
+1
Simo, I thought it would be for you to see patches from github. So you needn't watch every PR in GH but I didn't want to be your spokesman :-)
LS
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:23:59PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 09:38), Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:20 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:41), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:39:27AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:25), sssd-github-notification@fedorahosted.org wrote:
jhrozek's pull request #5: "Miscellanous patches for the sssd-secrets responder" was opened
PR body: The first patch just makes an internal function static. The other just makes the use of a config section more uniform. We could go one way or the other, I don't really mind which, but we shouldn't use two ways to access the same data.
See the full pull-request at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/5
Would it be possible to sent patches in mail? samba does it. It would be a hint for me wheter it worth to review a patch in web interface.
It's possible, but not implemented. I would like to send a separate mail about the proposed workflow anyway.
Then please attach mails to the thread :-)
+1
Simo, I thought it would be for you to see patches from github. So you needn't watch every PR in GH but I didn't want to be your spokesman :-)
I also agree it's valuable so that if someone opens a PR, we can see immediately what the patch is about.
btw the patch for attachments in notifications is already under review: https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa-tools/pull/8
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 17:23 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 09:38), Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:20 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:41), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:39:27AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/08/16 10:25), sssd-github-notification@fedorahosted.org wrote:
jhrozek's pull request #5: "Miscellanous patches for the sssd-secrets responder" was opened
PR body: The first patch just makes an internal function static. The other just makes the use of a config section more uniform. We could go one way or the other, I don't really mind which, but we shouldn't use two ways to access the same data.
See the full pull-request at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/5
Would it be possible to sent patches in mail? samba does it. It would be a hint for me wheter it worth to review a patch in web interface.
It's possible, but not implemented. I would like to send a separate mail about the proposed workflow anyway.
Then please attach mails to the thread :-)
+1
Simo, I thought it would be for you to see patches from github. So you needn't watch every PR in GH but I didn't want to be your spokesman :-)
I am actually happy to use both, but in different ways. Mail is more of a batch/notification thing. Github pages are more of a "let's see what need to be acted upon".
If it were only on github I would have to chase closed PRs, as I am usually "late to the party", so for "catching up" email is much better. But for the case where you just want to see what is open and may need review, going to the open PR page is easier as you can have a quick glance at what is pending (just like with patchwork, which fulfilled this role).
Simo.
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org