From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18516 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2017 23:58:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 42009 Received: (qmail 24704 invoked by uid 1010); 10 Nov 2017 23:58:03 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from park01.gkg.net by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(205.235.26.22):SA:0(-1.7/5.0):. Processed in 1.849897 secs); 10 Nov 2017 23:58:03 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: SRS0=ReL1=CI=yahoo.co.uk=okiddle@bounces.park01.gkg.net X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gkg.net Authentication-Results: amavisd4.gkg.net (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.co.uk X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1510358265; bh=diDjcYLEAgBRn+RUUdQ2GTIgItQYu8LAjtHPp/IPzK8=; h=From:References:To:Subject:Date:From:Subject; b=NTQXGg+ndfA6BwfasXnAAhinvdK7iN05Vo3yHKqoF5sBRWC1fNHmFAnN3ciLWaKsZHacfKgiHlHJBy0Y09YSd+sRHB/EogUVGmppkReerSsQlPAUNnZMUETvvJWIKaUloLM3Ovbr5YGueM0EilinTcxPIUfa64Mnod0eMusRKpxcrGNhZR8TMpcof3VpO4h+8UDzAOoqkjVutjtZVJpMwDJJse6bERAudSBMhbZd1/rkuGKO5R+VEmZkbtZbnVpc+CtKDF0QWLC0kv+yvSYCI57N5EeH+zDxHyVR7BLGjRovKHG2x3/piRUmsNJicjln6zehOte1AQQdZ3RQIpecHA== X-YMail-OSG: jAYtLb4VM1nO_2_pW0yB8Th17YbRqqt4zu6RdISAdP5ZjH3aWgv_GfGLOnW0Ryr Dt6TguJiCW9yc8HriHQEst07X.hP9v205rFdnv_arF28a10Wrui9EeQySoGeX_xSeUEmuSZfSaTG dD_xUft_7HbeJ3Truv5xpIU59wtRU8DbEQzAfVc90lDp8iEVEGvWU28MJpR_fm1.kDlA3vuWHWFO e8DU9lVZUIhEtfosu4Fc2.BbZTA25Ck.uUO5gRChydBGCUMjjlXWuJ3oGhKSKRPIing6Z1s.7Zbl ohMI691HlX4jlpeqShloNr8TGEkiuxTINSW1VAVDVPpTnLXlcLaCRgBIYMmzjIEjGXRaQ0HE0hzN PgDUpDip0nC59JXyMCNh_RmWYsSSwq_9A73GqKFAvdXykXWrXEx61iY6d7jSTVLoxYDnmWRN757O lrJgZXVNPq7zpPCwf5_aJmnvl_tz26JuC1Okp1YyR4zp5so8lNTUugQlbVSAzLjpY8Zgte_SMxOG mMdb_b7rc.9hyYRvT8G2oEs3fZ6dNVsPAjAJd X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 843310.45724.bm@smtp106.mail.ir2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: jAYtLb4VM1nO_2_pW0yB8Th17YbRqqt4zu6RdISAdP5ZjH3 aWgv_GfGLOnW0RyrDt6TguJiCW9yc8HriHQEst07X.hP9v205rFdnv_arF28 a10Wrui9EeQySoGeX_xSeUEmuSZfSaTGdD_xUft_7HbeJ3Truv5xpIU59wtR U8DbEQzAfVc90lDp8iEVEGvWU28MJpR_fm1.kDlA3vuWHWFOe8DU9lVZUIhE tfosu4Fc2.BbZTA25Ck.uUO5gRChydBGCUMjjlXWuJ3oGhKSKRPIing6Z1s. 7ZblohMI691HlX4jlpeqShloNr8TGEkiuxTINSW1VAVDVPpTnLXlcLaCRgBI YMmzjIEjGXRaQ0HE0hzNPgDUpDip0nC59JXyMCNh_RmWYsSSwq_9A73GqKFA vdXykXWrXEx61iY6d7jSTVLoxYDnmWRN757OlrJgZXVNPq7zpPCwf5_aJmnv l_tz26JuC1Okp1YyR4zp5so8lNTUugQlbVSAzLjpY8Zgte_SMxOGmMdb_b7r c.9hyYRvT8G2oEs3fZ6dNVsPAjAJd X-Yahoo-SMTP: opAkk_CswBAce_kJ3nIPlH80cJI- cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org In-reply-to: From: Oliver Kiddle References: <31167.1510244459@thecus.kiddle.eu> <016CE3D3-BAB1-41C8-A882-D3301F2D32F4@ntlworld.com> To: Alex George Subject: Re: pull requests for completion functions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4311.1510358261.1@thecus.kiddle.eu> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:57:41 +0100 Message-ID: <4312.1510358261@thecus.kiddle.eu> Alex George wrote: > No objections here. I think it would be especially useful for large > patches. However, if someone were to use git{hub,lab} to submit a PR, > should they send a message about it to the list? If so, should discussion > about the patch take place on the list, or on git{hub,lab}? What should the > mailing list subject be? Should the body simply contain a link to the PR? The motivation is to make it easier for casual contributors to submit completion function related patches. I was planning to keep interaction related to pull/merge requests on git{hub,lab} and only move to the list if questions related to the core parts of completion come up. When discussing a proposed patch, it's often useful to quote parts of both patch and commentary so I'm not sure how constructive it would be if the patch is on gitlab and the explanatory remarks go to the list. Sending completion function patches to the mailing list will also continue to be perfectly acceptable. I'll probably continue to do things that way myself. Perhaps we should lower the threshold of what gets pushed unposted with completion functions to reduce noise on the list(?) I'm not sure I see a problem with large patches on the mailing list but until now, my experience with git{lab,hub} is relatively limited. So I'm open to suggestions. Oliver