From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Allan Webber Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/04] gnu: xdotools: Update to 3.20150503.1 Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:39:25 -0800 Message-ID: <87lh6xtnnm.fsf@dustycloud.org> References: <87d1safqir.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20160206083550.GD1432@jasmine> <87r3gptybm.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20160206211853.GA6912@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSCRs-00029b-SK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 18:39:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSCRp-0005PZ-Mn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 18:39:28 -0500 Received: from dustycloud.org ([50.116.34.160]:52384) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSCRp-0005PV-IH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 18:39:25 -0500 In-reply-to: <20160206211853.GA6912@jasmine> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Leo Famulari writes: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 11:48:13AM -0800, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: >> Leo Famulari writes: >> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:48:12PM -0800, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: >> > Is this line too long? I can't say for sure looking at the patch in my >> > email client. If so, the linter should complain. >> > >> > [...] >> >> You're right. I should be using the linter but I was slacking off I >> guess... sorry! > > The linter is our friend and we should visit him or her often :) I agree. I'll try to be more familiar with our linter friend more often! > I do wonder about the tests... if the required "black magic" is having > an X server available, we do have some examples of that in the package > tree. Otherwise it might be good to explain a little more so that it's > easier for future contributors to understand what the problem is. > > Otherwise LGTM. Ah well... I didn't write this part about the tests! And I don't know the context. I mostly just patched things up for the new version. Anyway, since you say "LGTM", I'm going to merge this one.