This is mainly targeted at Max and Mike, but I'll put the question in the open. There are a bunch of new brews pending acceptance, and it is software that I just don't know anything about. I'm trying to be more conservative than usual when merging things, to prevent dependency breakages, but that's unfair to perfectly reasonable software that's just waiting to be merged. So then, what is Homebrew's current acceptance policy? Should I go ahead and merge things that look genrally sound? Wait for "me toos" on the open issues? Pull them into Homebrew-ALT and let them slowly migrate over?
May I suggest someone makes the brew search command go over the Github API with a http request and tries to find unmerged pull requests for that search string? The command can then output how to install and suggest that the user adds a "meetoo" to the ticket if they want it merged properly. > This is mainly targeted at Max and Mike, but I'll put the question in the open. > > There are a bunch of new brews pending acceptance, and it is software > that I just don't know anything about. > > I'm trying to be more conservative than usual when merging things, to > prevent dependency breakages, but that's unfair to perfectly > reasonable software that's just waiting to be merged. > > So then, what is Homebrew's current acceptance policy? > > Should I go ahead and merge things that look genrally sound? > Wait for "me toos" on the open issues? > Pull them into Homebrew-ALT and let them slowly migrate over?
On 8 June 2011 17:56, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: > May I suggest someone makes the brew search command go over the Github > API with a http request and tries to find unmerged pull requests for > that search string? > > The command can then output how to install and suggest that the user > adds a "meetoo" to the ticket if they want it merged properly. Seems awesome to me !
A welcoming addition, indeed! Den 08/06/2011 19.51 skrev "Benoit Daloze" <eregontp@gmail.com>: > On 8 June 2011 17:56, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: >> May I suggest someone makes the brew search command go over the Github >> API with a http request and tries to find unmerged pull requests for >> that search string? >> >> The command can then output how to install and suggest that the user >> adds a "meetoo" to the ticket if they want it merged properly. > > Seems awesome to me !
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: > May I suggest someone makes the brew search command go over the Github > API with a http request and tries to find unmerged pull requests for > that search string? > > The command can then output how to install and suggest that the user > adds a "meetoo" to the ticket if they want it merged properly. And maybe that last step - adding "meetoo" is also possible through the same github api. > >> This is mainly targeted at Max and Mike, but I'll put the question in the open. >> >> There are a bunch of new brews pending acceptance, and it is software >> that I just don't know anything about. >> >> I'm trying to be more conservative than usual when merging things, to >> prevent dependency breakages, but that's unfair to perfectly >> reasonable software that's just waiting to be merged. >> >> So then, what is Homebrew's current acceptance policy? >> >> Should I go ahead and merge things that look genrally sound? >> Wait for "me toos" on the open issues? >> Pull them into Homebrew-ALT and let them slowly migrate over? >
That sounds ideal, there are plenty of waiting-to-be-merged formulae that I really would like. On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Dreamcat4 <dreamcat4@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: >> May I suggest someone makes the brew search command go over the Github >> API with a http request and tries to find unmerged pull requests for >> that search string? >> >> The command can then output how to install and suggest that the user >> adds a "meetoo" to the ticket if they want it merged properly. > > And maybe that last step - adding "meetoo" is also possible through > the same github api. > >> >>> This is mainly targeted at Max and Mike, but I'll put the question in the open. >>> >>> There are a bunch of new brews pending acceptance, and it is software >>> that I just don't know anything about. >>> >>> I'm trying to be more conservative than usual when merging things, to >>> prevent dependency breakages, but that's unfair to perfectly >>> reasonable software that's just waiting to be merged. >>> >>> So then, what is Homebrew's current acceptance policy? >>> >>> Should I go ahead and merge things that look genrally sound? >>> Wait for "me toos" on the open issues? >>> Pull them into Homebrew-ALT and let them slowly migrate over? >> >
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Adam Vandenberg <flangy@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wait for "me toos" on the open issues? > Are "me toos" desired on open issues? I've been avoiding doing that on other users' unpulled formulae out of concern for spamming the accepters.
> Are "me toos" desired on open issues?
Kinda-sorta, I mean, we need some way of gauging user interest in
particular brews.
When we get multiple submissions for the same package that's also an
indicator, and I'd rather get "me toos" than duplicate submissions.
On 2 Jun 2011, at 19:14, Adam Vandenberg wrote: > This is mainly targeted at Max and Mike, but I'll put the question in the open. > > There are a bunch of new brews pending acceptance, and it is software > that I just don't know anything about. That you've never heard of or don't really understand or are very obscure? > I'm trying to be more conservative than usual when merging things, to > prevent dependency breakages, but that's unfair to perfectly > reasonable software that's just waiting to be merged. > > So then, what is Homebrew's current acceptance policy? > > Should I go ahead and merge things that look genrally sound? > Wait for "me toos" on the open issues? > Pull them into Homebrew-ALT and let them slowly migrate over? Feel free to assign issues to me if you don't want to handle them. I unsubscribed from issue mails to try and get other stuff in my life sorted but can still handle certain issues if you'd rather. -- Mike McQuaid http://mikemcquaid.com
> That you've never heard of or don't really understand or are very obscure?
Mostly that I haven't heard of. Many are obscure. Most are "not in
MacPorts", not that we use that as a standard.
On 2 Jun 2011, at 19:22, Adam Vandenberg wrote: > Mostly that I haven't heard of. Many are obscure. Most are "not in > MacPorts", not that we use that as a standard. My judgement is based on "is it in Debian, does it have a stable release, how many patches are required to make it work on OSX, could I see more than one person using it" (not that all are required). -- Mike McQuaid http://mikemcquaid.com
Maybe there could be a 'reviewed=false' attribute added to a formula, which will disable the installation of a formula, unless explicitly allowed. This will allow formulas to be accepted quickly while they are being reviewed by someone with more experience. Install an unreviewed formula: brew install someforumula --allow-unreviewed -- Kenneth Reitz On Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mike McQuaid wrote: > > On 2 Jun 2011, at 19:22, Adam Vandenberg wrote: > > > Mostly that I haven't heard of. Many are obscure. Most are "not in > > MacPorts", not that we use that as a standard. > > My judgement is based on "is it in Debian, does it have a stable release, how many patches are required to make it work on OSX, could I see more than one person using it" (not that all are required). > > -- > Mike McQuaid > http://mikemcquaid.com
I'm all for this. Adding a line like this, can make it easier to update and include new formulae. And rely on the users explicit choice to use these. -- Birger J. Nordølum Sent with Sparrow (http://bit.ly/sigsprw) On Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Kenneth Reitz wrote: > Maybe there could be a 'reviewed=false' attribute added to a formula, which will disable the installation of a formula, unless explicitly allowed. > > This will allow formulas to be accepted quickly while they are being reviewed by someone with more experience. > > Install an unreviewed formula: > > brew install someforumula --allow-unreviewed > > > > > > -- > Kenneth Reitz > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mike McQuaid wrote: > > > > > On 2 Jun 2011, at 19:22, Adam Vandenberg wrote: > > > > > Mostly that I haven't heard of. Many are obscure. Most are "not in > > > MacPorts", not that we use that as a standard. > > > > My judgement is based on "is it in Debian, does it have a stable release, how many patches are required to make it work on OSX, could I see more than one person using it" (not that all are required). > > > > -- > > Mike McQuaid > > http://mikemcquaid.com