[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nano-devel]

From: Chris Allegretta
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel]
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:46:52 -0500

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Eitan Adler <address@hidden> wrote:
On 2 January 2013 10:39, Chris Allegretta <address@hidden> wrote:
> Also, I'm already aware that the locking implementation means you
> can't edit files in directories you cant write to without turning
> locking off; all other bugs reports are still welcome.  Apologies for
> that oversight!

Other than this issue I've been testing it and it seems nice.
Personally I'd like a config option for a locks directory but this is
a feature request, not a bug report.

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Chris Allegretta <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I'm still relatively inexperienced with git but like what I've seen
>> since coming into contact with it for other work.  Let me see about
>> setting it up in Savannah; as long as it's not a hard cut and I can
>> screw up the repo a few times before moving from SVN officially this
>> sounds fine.

Git is cool.  I've been personally using "git svn" for this task.
Upstream on svn or git doesn't bother me either way.

>> Also this is a good time to remind me if folks have been maintaining
>> downstream things for your distro and you want to push them up; a URL
>> is preferred to a giant number of attachments in a private reply :)

FreeBSD has

Hmm this is taking a lot longer than I'd have hoped.  I'll keep on this as it seems like it shouldnt be this hard to figure out... unsure how easy fixing the last would be, ideally we'd turn it into a .in file and actually generate the path based on the install prefix.

Other patches outstanding (lacking an ack) from me.


err, I see lots of warning wih slang (assuming that's what you meant), it seems slang thinks that the string argument to waddnstr is char * but ncurses think its const char *.  But since you brought it up I fixed some other issues with -Wall and -pedantic in r4555

Unable to reproduce with the g++ I tried (gcc version 4.4.5) but I introduced new problems with the locking code so I fixed those. r4556

included included in r4557

I didn't verify these patches haven't been applied yet.  Sorry.

Other outstanding issues that don't relate to the code:
has the wrong version number

This is likely a release script problem, maybe I should just check all that in rather than keep having to find them every time I upgrade desktops....

I believe I also saw some older patches from Mike Frysinger but he is
in a better position to say whether they still require an ack:


UTR but I assume certain versions of gcc would complain about this type of thing.  r4559
Other remaining patches without an ack:

Hmm and looks like a few others, but wow this one was pretty blatantly wrong.  r4560.

 Thank you for all your efforts here Eitan and Mike!

reply via email to

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