labofsahil/github-event-dataset-2012 huggingface dataset:
I would word it more along the lines of "Titanium API <name> is deprecated as of SDK v <x>" or something. This way the warning is more inline with those given by Java and C/C++ compilers.
Note directive can be used here.
Too many dashes, should be `--perms='rwr---'`
I think we can re-write this to:

```ruby
config_file = Rails.root.join '/config/config.yml'
FileUtils.cp(config_file.to_s + '.example'), config_file) unless config_file.exist?
```
Shouldn't it be < not <= on the second half?
I would but I can't in the conf file. I don't think these URLs will always share the same root so I probably shouldn't do that.
I like this but I wouldn't merge them into `program`, I would have it take a callback with the object it populates, camel-case only
What do you mean with that? That in theory you could use an annotation processor to figure this out? Might be worth being more specific.
Could you align this indention with the `$str` declaration?
cool noted .. I'm kinda  one liner person   I thought  guys wanted explicity  statements
I think this should probably use ``LF_DEFAULT_TLD``
The documentation generates the signature `id<> parentOrientationController` for this. Is there a way to manually override this? If not, we should file a bug against appledoc and/or submit a PR fixing it.
Yes. That was old code. Removed.
Argh, can't believe I missed that.  I must have searched the wrong pom.
Please do not write "standart". It hurts me every time :(
Why not put this file in app/filters or similar?  It feels like it belongs under app/ to me, as that is the place for application code for the engine.  lib/ seems more like config/loading stuff to me
Sorry for the late reply.

We have been thinking and discussing back and forth about your suggested approach.

We don't think that triggering a set of builds on all events is a good approach.
Lets say you have two jobs that are configured to trigger on a "Code Review +2" on a specific git; if two persons are commenting Code review +2 in short interval of each other it would trigger two builds of each job, when our expected behavior would be to trigger on just the first and then ignore the second, at least while the same job is already building for the same "trigger setting".
One of the reasons for this behavior is if you look at pull request #11; build resources can be low and you don't want to build things that you don't need to.
There is a similar "bug" today when you do a manual trigger of the same patch set twice (except that things are overwritten in BuildMemory).

As we discussed things started to get complicated, there are some caveats with this approach, but if we start with a common case and discuss from there, we might get to a good approach, if you're up for it.

So I propose to add before scheduling a build a check if a build is already running for the same thing as the current event, and if it is don't schedule a build. 
That would take care of multiple builds running at the same time, and if a new job is configured in between it would just be triggered and added to the same memory imprint.
To accomplish that we would need to have the key in the build memory based on something that can be calculated like event type + patch set and if needed something special for that event type.
Then we would have coordination for each event type and patch set, and maybe that is good enough?

One problem is with the CommentAdded type itself, I guess we want to differentiate between the different approval types (code review, verified, etc.) and people can set all of them in the same comment I guess, could we split those up into separate events internally?

And if, in the example above, someone three days later add another +2 all jobs would trigger again and overwrite the old result. But I guess that is a non issue, or something that we can live with?

Another scenario that complicates things:
Lets say an upload triggers project X and Y. While they are building someone makes a comment that triggers project A and B.
X and Y finishes with -1 and later A and B finishes with +1 overwriting the Jenkins verdict in Gerrit.

I think that if we just make people aware of this limitation we could live with it, i.e. propose a workflow that states "don't do anything that would trigger a new set of builds untill you have your +1"
It's a little lame to say so, but it is something that we can work on in later features to fix.

What do you think?
It certainly sounds more accurate
it and describe are already present on the top line
change to getLong(...) and check/set null