similar to: [LLVMdev] code-owner sporks

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > Just brainstorming here, but what if each CODE_OWNER maintained a spork on > Github and accepted Pull Requests? What's a spork, you ask? Well it's > fork with no intent to diverge - it spoons some centralized repo (be it via > git or git-svn). If you haven't heard the term

I think the main benefit of a scheme like this would be that a pull request tells a code owner which patches require their attention. As a contributor it would be nice to see your patch in a queue somewhere rather than just be buried down the mailing list. When patches are sent to llvm-commits it can be hard to tell if a code owner has noticed the patch because it is a very high-volume list.

> I think the main benefit of a scheme like this would be that a pull request > tells a code owner which patches require their attention. As a contributor > it would be nice to see your patch in a queue somewhere rather than just be > buried down the mailing list. When patches are sent to llvm-commits it can > be hard to tell if a code owner has noticed the patch because it is a

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > David A. Green wrote: >> I find llvm-commits daunting. So much that I hesitate to do reviews. >> As Chris commented, I am not very active on that list. There's a reason >> for that beyond lack of time. > > So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to >

David A. Green wrote: > I find llvm-commits daunting. So much that I hesitate to do reviews. > As Chris commented, I am not very active on that list. There's a reason > for that beyond lack of time. So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to review only commits to a sub-tree that interests them? Let's say it may or may not be easier for reviewers to

> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. No, this isn't viable under at least both assumptions: 1) Cost-benefit fails. Github pull requests adds less value to the community than llvm-commits. 2) No technical solution exists. Notifications of Github pull requests can't be sent to llvm-commits. #1 may or may not be the case, which is the point

Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> writes: >> - I have to *remember* I submitted the patch (not hard, but it is a >> cost). > > If you forgot, the chances are high that the patch was unimportant. I > do my development on local git branches, so every time I do `git > branch`, I'm reminded. There's really no overhead. Every time you have to check it's

Andy Shipman wrote: > When running spork on a merb application, whenever a spec is run I get > the following error from the Spork server. > > /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/merb-core-1.0.11/lib/merb-core/bootloader.rb:1358: > [BUG] rb_gc_mark(): unknown data type 0x3c(0x2203d0) non object > ruby 1.8.7 (2009-06-08 patchlevel 173) [i686-darwin9] > > Which crashes the

Hi folks, I''m going through railstutorial.org and so I apologize if I''m hitting the wrong group here and would appreciate any appropriate redirection if necessary. I''ve set up Spork + Autotest as per Michael''s instructions in http://ruby.railstutorial.org/chapters/static-pages#sec:testing_tools Essentially by doing the following (using rvm & I''m

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: >> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. > > No, this isn't viable under at least both assumptions: > > 1) Cost-benefit fails. Github pull requests adds less value to the > community than llvm-commits. > 2) No technical solution exists.

I''m trying to test registration emails (sent with devise), and I keep getting the error: Net::SMTPServerBusy: 454 4.7.1 <model_spec-hcDgGtZH8xNBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>: Relay access denied I''m running Rails 3.2.11 with Capybara, and I have (temporarily) chopped my spec_helper.rb and test.rb files down to the bare minimum, still getting the error above.

LLVM Community, > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-July/041738.html This was extraordinarily valuable in learning to understand the situation - thank you David Blaikie for pointing me to it. A few key snippets: "Because I optimize for the code reviewer, not the patch submitter," Chris Lattner "Forcing transitioning to git makes no sense for a lot of us - for

Even with Spork, my requests specs are very slow to start running (about 7 seconds). I suspect Rails is booting each time I run "rspec -X spec/requests". Is that true? If so, is there any way I could instruct the web server to keep alive after the specs run so that it would be faster on next run? Are there any resources on how to have better performance on running requests specs

rspec-rails version 1.2.9 has been released! * <http://rspec.info> * <http://rubyforge.org/projects/rspec> * <http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec-rails> * <http://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/rails> * <rspec-devel at rubyforge.org> Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby on Rails. Changes: ### Version 1.2.9 / 2009-10-05 * enhancements * added route_to and

Hi all, I know this is probably more of a JRuby question but I''m guessing that people on this list may have gone down this path before. At work we are starting a new project using JRuby. The startup speed for testing an app is very painful. Nailgun helps a lot with that. It only helps with the slow startup time of JRuby though and does not address the use case of having gems

Using RSpec, Rails Preloading Rails environment undefined method `generators' for #<Rails::Railtie::Configuration:0x0000000339a898> (NoMethodError) /home/rorway/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.2/gems/railties-4.1.1/lib/rails/railtie/configuration.rb:95:in `method_missing' /home/rorway/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.2/gems/rspec-rails-2.0.0.beta.18/lib/rspec-rails.rb:4:in `<class:Railtie>'

Hi Michael, > As for actually switching to git. I see no benefit to justify the cost > of switching unless we actually take advantage of git's features. And > I've yet to see anyone propose this. Then I'll be the first. :) The benefit is that the review process would require no file copies or email attachments, shorter email conversations, no copying code during reviews to

On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > The proposed solution is to optionally attach debug information with > llvm instruction directly. A new keyword 'dbg' is used to identify > debugging information associated with an instruction. The debugging > information, if available, is printed after the last instruction > operand. The debugging information entry uses

Hi. I''m trying to use Spork (actually spork-testunit, last git version) with Rails 3. My setup is correct, I manage to launch Spork (through bundle exec) and testdrb. But I cannot succeed to have my models reloaded. Spork-testunit''s doc says to put the loading commands in the prefork block, which I did. Nobody seems to require the use of Spork#trap_method. What is the good

Howdy, I'm running Dovecot 1.1.16 on a staging server to do some testing before building a new server and moving a bunch of qmail/vpopmail/courier accounts over. I wanted to test the migration of courier accounts to dovecot with a few clients, so I copied over a few large accounts. All went well with a small account (100+ messages) when accessing the account via POP - no re-downloads