3518 entries in 0.527s
decimation: mircea_popescu: re:
http://www.xenosystems.net/chaos-patch-38/ << a comment at the bottom: "Frog Do Says: IMO, “Moldbug studies” remain one of the more fertile areas of research for the American Outer Right. More interesting info in that “Trilema” piece than anything on Ferguson."
BingoBoingo: Still, do you really want some insurer or landlord knowing how much spackle you had to buy to
patch the walls after the bacanals
assbot: f9beb4d9 #17: SUCCESS (stable); Comment: asciilifeform's goodbye-win-32
patch assbot: f9beb4d9 #16: SUCCESS (stable); Comment: asciilifeform's turdmeister-alert-snip
patch assbot: f9beb4d9 #12: SUCCESS (stable); Comment: ben vulpes' rm_rf_upnp
patch assbot: f9beb4d9 #5: FAILURE (broken since build #3); Comment: initial commit: asciilifeform's manifest and rm's manifest and 'chicken'
patch assbot: f9beb4d9 #4: FAILURE (broken since build #3); Comment: result of applying the chicken
patch jurov: ben_vulpes: yes. i'll look why it did not associate
patch with signature
kakobrekla: these lisp guys ... 'nobody submited a
patch in 4 and a half minuts...!' and 'only one download first day' is 'project dead dood'
mircea_popescu: just like there's no punishment for the anon derp hiding behind "contributed a
patch to openssh"
decimation: they might even find a particular
patch of jungle that is more pleasing than another
ben_vulpes: but if you're going to hack on it, start with the 0.5.3 dist at f9beb4d9.org, apply asciilifeform's "chicken"
patch, and then yours on top of that.
Adlai: of course, but the "manual trust verification" approach taken further would suggest only applying critical bugfixes, as patches, signed by the developer who wrote them (preferably with a signature published at the time of the fix, alternatively obtaining a signature in the present day... or manually verifying the
patch's trustworthyness, and signing yourself)
Adlai: a "conflict" would require a separate
patch, which should be signed by the resolver
Adlai: asciilifeform: you can add metadata such as
patch dependency which is not evident just from the
patch's raw contents
Adlai: they're looking for verified
patch lists
mircea_popescu: jurov seems the site needs the extension of a "
patch notes" clickable field ?
jurov: maybe you want to rate the
patch? lol
jurov: it pairs the sig to the
patch by name
mircea_popescu: so basically, the correct approach here would have been for ascii to make a
patch for each individual diff ?
jurov: it will make blablabla...hexporn.
patch.sig
mircea_popescu: if this results in a
patch to the kernel of w/e jurov's server is using...
Adlai: darcs is more organized than patches-over-mail, i've not used it enough to know whether it has any builtin support for
patch signing
jurov: but that's buggy, too. yest it ate newline in the
patch file and then proclaimed "sig invalid, wont publish"
Adlai: there's no
patch, just an announcement about the github repo
jurov: you're welcome to send the
patch itself, as described there, too
jurov: hi Adlai, you wanted to post a
patch to btc-dev?
jurov: asciilifeform: thanks, i need something to chew on. apparently mailman mangled the
patch before saving to archive
BingoBoingo: The scoopbot always on
patch seems to need work
assbot: Potentially catastrophic bug bites all versions of Windows.
Patch now | Ars Technica
mircea_popescu: who the fuck ever read whatever software the dns letters run ? who ever wrote a
patch for it ?
mircea_popescu: suppose ninjashogun wants to push a
patch for deedbot. or, whatever, the cardano.
assbot: LKML: Lv Zheng: [
PATCH v2 7/7] ACPI: Add support to force header inclusion rules for <acpi/acpi.h>.
mircea_popescu: cazalla: so what's best practice when something like this gnupg 2.1.0 modern comes out? <<< i use 1.4 branch. depends what you're after, but in general best practice is read the update notes see if anything you actualy want [then in the unlikely case that yes,
patch your sources with just that and recompile].
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you'd reject a
patch because it was submitted by a whore ?
bounce: reimplement in php and submit as a
patch to wordpress
assbot: [3.13.y.z,extended,stable]
Patch "sparc64: Fix FPU register corruption with AES crypto offload." has been added to staging queue - Patchwork
BingoBoingo: I thought this is why alf
patch series was named chicken
undata: bounce: neg, was not led by the
patch name "chicken" to believe that that one cleaned up the project
ben_vulpes: take a look at the first
patch on therealbitcoin.org
undata: process to submit is
patch with signature?
ben_vulpes: hashtag asciilifeform
patch collection october
ben_vulpes: hashtag asciilifeform
patch collection
ben_vulpes: .tar.gz, including
patch and detached sig.
jurov: the body is only comment.
patch itself will be always in attachment
jurov: srs, i now wonder what the dude that made the
patch and supposedly maintains it, what he uses it for?
Naphex: asciilifeform: didn't quite pick up that turdmeister alert snip was a bitcoin
patch to check it:)
ben_vulpes: jurov: why bother checking body? instead maybe just check .
patch.sig for l2 sig, and compare that to the file.
ben_vulpes: and i've no idea if it's the most recent - there's no
patch tracking tooling in place