IRC channel logs

<sneek>Welcome back dsmith!!

<ArneBab>rlb: I’m not sure right now whether those old thanks had been missing contributors …

<ArneBab>rlb: I now doublechecked in the source: yes, the added contributors came after 3.0.10 ⇒ needs to moved to new hearty thanks section for 3.0.11 …

<ArneBab>thank you for catching that!

<dsmith>sneek, botsnack

<sneek>:)

<old>sneek: help

<old>sneek: where is old

<old>is there not a command for have seen?

<old>sneek: seen old

<sneek>I last saw old in #guile 0 seconds ago, saying: sneek: seen old.

<old>ah! not documented in help

<old>sneek: seen flatwhatson

<sneek>I think I remember flatwhatson in #spritely 11 months ago, saying: re: sdl in prescheme: https://codeberg.org/prescheme/prescheme-demo/src/branch/main/game-of-life.scm.

<old>anyone has news on flatwhatson?

<sneek>Yey! tohoyn is back!!

<tohoyn>daviid: FYI, it seems that the rendering error is not invoked by the GTK3 version of the calculator application.

<rlb>ArneBab: I'd just done the same thing earlier :)

<ArneBab>rlb: :-)

<ArneBab>rlb: I guess we need a *new* section with thanks specifically for 3.0.11.

<rlb>Yep - if you want to move your entries there, great, otherwise, I can "do something" -- was already planning to do a semi automatic sweep of the relevant commit message range for any names that weren't already included.

<rlb>Though as I say that I realize I hadn't yet thought about how to address the lightening merge there.

<ArneBab>I guess needs to be done manually

<rlb>In other projects I typically get the Author:s automatically, i.e. via git log --pretty=%aN ..., and then scan the messages for any explicit thanks, etc. and then condense, so I was really just wondering about policy. i.e. wrt "new" (since the last merge?) commits brought in via the lightening merge(s).

<ArneBab>rlb: I’d just use commits from both, guile and lightening. Since people aren’t credited by volume but simply named, I don’t think it matters if a change is seen twice.

IRC channel logs

2025-11-13.log