From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33263) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gsCc3-00031R-Cy for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:19:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gsCc1-0001U5-K9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:19:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gsCbt-00018q-IQ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:18:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gsBTO-0005uT-13 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 14:06:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#34217] [PATCH 01/11] gnu: Add ruby-cucumber-wire. Resent-Message-ID: References: <87zhrmgy0x.fsf@cbaines.net> <20190127114956.26570-1-mail@cbaines.net> <20190203220328.747b1454@alma-ubu> From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <20190203220328.747b1454@alma-ubu> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 19:05:23 +0000 Message-ID: <87a7j65cek.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?= Cc: 34217@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling writes: > On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:49:46 +0000 > Christopher Baines wrote: > >> Package version 0.0.1 initially, as this is what's needed by Cucumber >> 3, and Cucumber 4 hasn't been released yet. > > I would prefer to see this hint as a comment in the code, not in the > commit message: When I as a developer stumble upon the package > definition and see it is outdated, I would just update it and not > search all commit messages to find out it shouldn't. A comment near the > package definition or version would prevent that mistake. Sure, I've added a comment to the package definition. Thanks for taking a look, Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAlxd0vNfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9Xcd1w//U+Ln9xWnWeUShlKiHF5zDYA0rZkM45lZfR2Lry2O8/Wi9fMP6C+G/kBk lO3Sw00wkcjvD6XhSL5Az3sby3qwFQjbSG8ebAdr/HRRtnwK/v28WAqXmfLkTjtk QZAyI7k5F34F1lAd6W0FAu+LWaDx6mauH14pSqQcbWhhv62kPCRPpTCFW6hphais vibSem72B1GXaFwhPFAPusqEjiyqkPbmVCZHY0Mnfb0N1UJjlyD9nxOLwiH3GhYg lzhHxymQysqf33Z6HifUKQGyJIjF1eBMNMtMIn5M3WT+mv5aha7rmvxNhxqwTmUZ 2BzyE00y0t+g4tymHK61tu77r0gc73eBDPn+v9hkOnW/wIUjcVbMLdm7fPMUVVFz 5PUA74dGwMcOTqxhCICTCORQrrAQhKTIakm6IDlSPAfFq9tViCi6W2+W+ObOH/oa tdI4c3jlMQrlHfBGuJt+G3bfv8V4Bupxy+IRHCPQdaLekAUrEwiS21vlQOZ/2W+C AYtHtMlLDN0xJqcOB+ubG/zfV/R+WsJIYDGe6G3aHaiF3SJOVVibNiyik5OSE/aQ MMTCGTX9lpIVg89GmeMiprMM0QC0ImqPRln2yndsX73OJay81PrsrRuKJZC6SvtH zP0OIOC4vNtRTFUoJuno3rc/j7TDNiYJBU2qyZHjVxy2sGxJOYU= =LbA0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--