Re: A consistency patch (Bug 781516)

[Andrew Miloradovsky <miloradovsky gmail com>]

On 04/21/2017 10:51 AM, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Andrew Miloradovsky
> <miloradovsky gmail com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> Hi,
>
> > I've prepared a fresher version of Planner's port to Nixpkgs, based on
> > the master branch and not on the release:
> >
> > - https://github.com/amiloradovsky/nixpkgs/tree/planner
> >
> > Please let me know, If there's something to correct before opening the
> > pull request.
> The fact that you use the term “pull request” has me worried. You know
> by now that we don’t use github for our workflow, so I hope you don’t
> plan on using a github pull request. The correct way would be to file
> a bug *right now* (i.e. no need to wait until your code is ready), and
> in this report provide info about your commits. You can attach patches
> so that we review them there, or if it really is an issue you can give
> the address to your branch someplace else. In any case you shouldn’t
> ask for a “pre-review” (‘let me know if there’s something to correct
> before submitting”).
Ah, no, I meant the Nixpkgs repository: Nix(OS) is developed on GitHub.
Maybe there's a better wording for the description of the port or
something...
I wasn't going to use the Gnome mirrors for submission!
> > - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=781516
> >
> > and I'm not sure if the developers were informed of it's existence or
> > simply are busy.
> This implies that your patch that was submitted only yesterday should
> have been reviewed by now. This is quite an unreasonable expectation.
> I am fully aware of it and it’ll get reviewed.
Ok, thanks. I'm just still learning how the workflow in Gnome is
structured, and what is the right tempo.
I didn't mean it's urgent...