GNU bug report logs - #40537
[PATCH] gnu: Add bchoppr.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 40537 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 40537 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
To: Guix patches <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add bchoppr.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:38:22 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

These patches add 3 new LV2 plugins by the same author as bsequencer:
bchoppr
bshapr
bjumblr

Thanks,
Alex

[0003-gnu-Add-bjumblr.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-gnu-Add-bshapr.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0001-gnu-Add-bchoppr.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #8 received at 40537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
To: 40537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add bchoppr.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:15:51 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Please use this patch instead for bchoppr (updated version to 1.4.2).
The author fixed a bug that was causing a crash in Zrythm.

Thanks,
Alex

[0001-gnu-Add-bchoppr.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #11 received at 40537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
Cc: 40537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40537] [PATCH] gnu: Add bchoppr.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 20:06:54 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org> writes:

> These patches add 3 new LV2 plugins by the same author as bsequencer:
> bchoppr
> bshapr
> bjumblr

I've got a couple of comments. It looks to me like it would be clearer
to not have the packages inherit from bsequencer. Some copying in the
package definitions is fine if there are similarities between packages.

The second thing is that I'd try to avoid adding package definitions at
the end of files, just because it can lead to more merge conflicts.

Would you be able to send some updated patches?

Thanks,

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at 40537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 40537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40537] [PATCH] gnu: Add bchoppr.
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:11:11 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Chris,

I think these should inherit from bsequencer since these are plugins by
the same author and it's reasonable that they follow the same build
procedure. We already to do this for other similar situations and it
also makes maintenance easier and DRY. Perhaps moving them below
bsequencer would be a better solution?

> The second thing is that I'd try to avoid adding package definitions
> at
> the end of files, just because it can lead to more merge conflicts.

I'll keep this in mind for future patches.

Thanks,
Alex


On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 20:06 +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
> Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org> writes:
> 
> > These patches add 3 new LV2 plugins by the same author as
> > bsequencer:
> > bchoppr
> > bshapr
> > bjumblr
> 
> I've got a couple of comments. It looks to me like it would be
> clearer
> to not have the packages inherit from bsequencer. Some copying in the
> package definitions is fine if there are similarities between
> packages.
> 
> The second thing is that I'd try to avoid adding package definitions
> at
> the end of files, just because it can lead to more merge conflicts.
> 
> Would you be able to send some updated patches?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #19 received at 40537-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
Cc: 40537-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40537] [PATCH] gnu: Add bchoppr.
Date: Sun, 03 May 2020 11:19:48 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org> writes:

> I think these should inherit from bsequencer since these are plugins by
> the same author and it's reasonable that they follow the same build
> procedure. We already to do this for other similar situations and it
> also makes maintenance easier and DRY. Perhaps moving them below
> bsequencer would be a better solution?

Sorry for the slow reply. In terms of maintenance going forward, the
cost of inheritance is that it means that changes to one package
definition can effect others. So the question should be, should changes
to bsequencer like the inputs or arguments be applied to bchoppr as
well.

Anyway, these things become clearer with time. I've gone ahead and
pushed this (the 1.4.2 version) as
d5aee5003422c1cc4f3adfe016a24cc1b9c35881. I've moved the package up from
the bottom of the file, and tweaked the commit message (capital N in
new).

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.