Re: [PATCH] 11 little Ruby gems.

[Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>]

On 14/10/15 00:08, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>   The only thing that’s missing is adding an entry
> for you to the copyright header at the top of the file.  (I can amend
> your first patch in this series to include this line.)
>
> Since there haven’t been any objections so far I’ll push them soon.
Ta.
>> Can I ask, would it be helpful to alphabetize the packages in ruby.scm,
>> at least vaguely? Always adding new packages to the bottom of the file
>> causes git merge conflicts I would imagine. Of course, it would be even
>> more helpful if guix import put them in the right spot too, but that
>> seems harder.
> I’m also fighting with merge conflicts somewhat regularly, e.g. when
> editing some heavily edited file like the huge python.scm.  I avoid much
> of the problems by adding my packages somewhere to the middle in
> alphabetic order.  I do not do this when I have patch sequences where
> the latter depend on the former.
>
> Ordering package variables in ruby.scm doesn’t seem very useful to me.
> More could be gained, I suppose, by using a sexp-aware diff algorithm.
OK - merge conflicts don't seem to be much of a problem for me 
personally as someone who is only submitting occasional patches.