On 06/30/2010 09:43 PM, NightStrike wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM, David Edelsohndje@gmail.com wrote:
He understood your point very well. That is why Frank said, You
falsely presume zero vetting.
Maybe I didn't get the zero vetting part, then. I thought I did, but
apparently
I do understand the rationale for the FSF's desire to hold copyright,
and have a paper trail. But, at this point, I think that's making it
harder to people to participate, and with no real benefit. The FSF is
clinging to an outmoded policy due to a single occurrence from long ago.
I
Richard Kenner wrote:
I do understand the rationale for the FSF's desire to hold copyright,
and have a paper trail. But, at this point, I think that's making it
harder to people to participate, and with no real benefit. The FSF is
clinging to an outmoded policy due to a single occurrence from
If someone used a fake name when explicitly asked for a real name,
why should I trust him to not violate copyright?
I agree. Remember that we're working mostly on trust here: the
indemnification isn't worth anything at all from an individual since they
don't have any assets to back it up.
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 07:57:59 EDT
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
I disagree. From what I see of the industry and its practices, I think the
risk of an attack on Free Software due to lack of providence issues is
INCREASING, not decreasing. As FLOSS software makes more and
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
So who actually said no?
The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a account
for me.
In consultation with other overseers, I rejected your request. I did
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler f...@redhat.com wrote:
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
So who actually said no?
The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a account
for
On 06/30/2010 07:32 PM, NightStrike wrote:
In consultation with other overseers, I rejected your request. I did
not ask for a real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, but a real name.
You falsely presume zero vetting.
You missed my point, then. What's in a name? How would you know if
what
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/30/2010 07:32 PM, NightStrike wrote:
In consultation with other overseers, I rejected your request. I did
not ask for a real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, but a real name.
You falsely presume zero vetting.
On 06/30/2010 07:44 PM, NightStrike wrote:
No idea. I've been emailed offlist by 3 people that used fake names.
Or at least claimed to.
Personally, I have trouble believing that (unless we have independent
evidence that they also sleep with a 44 Magnum under the napkin).
In any case,
I meant pillow of course ;) ;)
Paolo.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler f...@redhat.com wrote:
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
So who actually said no?
The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
He understood your point very well. That is why Frank said, You
falsely presume zero vetting.
Maybe I didn't get the zero vetting part, then. I thought I did, but
apparently not. What does that mean in this context?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Thanks for the info. So there is now a provenance, which is the point:
there is a more-or-less real person associated with each contribution.
I certainly would like the FSF to move to a similar model.
I agree.
I do understand the rationale for the FSF's desire to
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
It would have been courteous for you -- or Frederic, or anyone else --
to have communicated that to me instead of just ignoring me.
Yes. I was not part of the conversation stream. I apologize on behalf
of Frank (not Frederic). He should have
On 29 June 2010 05:40, NightStrike wrote:
Then you should consider using legitimate account creation policies.
If I just put John Smith in the sign up form, I would have gotten an
account.
Not necessarily, there are maintainers with approval rights who
haven't got shell access, it's very
On 29 June 2010 01:39, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manu, I have no problem supporting you in implementing a Bugzilla
upgrade if you are still interested.
I won't have time before September for sure, most probably early October.
Still, I don't understand why a shell account is
/ throw away sounds like a bigger waste of time than trying to
jump through the patch pinging horror.
This whole issue has focussed in a little problem about the final step
(installing bugzilla in sourceware.org), whereas there is so much work
to do before reaching that step, that probably
The free software community works on a web of trust and personal
relationships. If you prefer to remain pseudonymous, then you must
accept that you will not be at the center of that web.
I agree. Openness is an important part of the free software community
and I don't believe that applies
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
The free software community works on a web of trust and personal
relationships. If you prefer to remain pseudonymous, then you must
accept that you will not be at the center of that web.
I agree. Openness is
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 June 2010 05:40, NightStrike wrote:
Then you should consider using legitimate account creation policies.
If I just put John Smith in the sign up form, I would have gotten an
account.
Not necessarily, there
On 29 June 2010 13:23, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
This whole issue has focussed in a little problem about the final step
(installing bugzilla in sourceware.org), whereas there is so much work
to do before reaching that step, that probably the person that starts
this work won't
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 June 2010 13:23, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
This whole issue has focussed in a little problem about the final step
(installing bugzilla in sourceware.org), whereas there is so much work
to do
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
It's not just present on social community sites. Look at the
entirety of sourceforge. That's quite a large respository of free
software, and yet it consists 100% of fake-named people (and please
understand what I mean by that.) It's even a place
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
I presented what I would need - access to the current code, as well as
the database.
So as I understand it, you can access the code, right? There is of
course nothing confidential in the bugs database. I have put a copy
created by mysqldump at
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
It's not just present on social community sites. Look at the
entirety of sourceforge. That's quite a large respository of free
software, and yet it consists 100% of fake-named
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
Maybe there's a way to look at how other projects handle the same
issue, and find a different solution that's more workable for more
people. I don't know what event you are specifically referring to in
the GCC history that created this situation, but
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:11 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
I am doing what I can. However, looking at other projects doesn't help
very much because most other projects simply don't worry about these
issues. That is, for example, why the Linux kernel was vulnerable to
the SCO
Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net writes:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:11 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
I am doing what I can. However, looking at other projects doesn't help
very much because most other projects simply don't worry about these
issues. That is, for example, why
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
go about it.
So who actually said no?
David
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
go about it.
So who actually said no?
David
The Frederic guy didn't
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
go about it.
So who actually said no?
David
The Frederic guy didn't
On 06/28/2010 04:11 PM, NightStrike wrote:
You guys need to realize how online identities work in this century.
From The Hound of the Baskervilles, Arthur Conan Doyle, 1902:
Out of the envelope he took a half-sheet of foolscap paper folded
into four. This he opened and spread flat upon
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a sourceware
account for me. He then ignored my followup emails asking for
clarification.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:13 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a sourceware
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:08 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
You guys need to realize how online identities work in this century.
Everyone realize that.
But you (whoever you really are) should also realize that to submit
patches and have them accepted, you need to have some legal papers done
with
While I do understand the reasons people want to hide with a pseudonym
on many forums (or social sites), I don't understand why someone want to
hide his identity when contributing to GCC (and therefore, after having
done the legal work of getting the legal papers signed...).
I don't either.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:08 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
You guys need to realize how online identities work in this century.
Everyone realize that.
But you (whoever you really are) should also realize that
(Off topic)
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
But you (whoever you really are) should also realize that to submit
patches and have them accepted, you need to have some legal papers done
with the FSF (copyright transfer or disclaimer, see the legal
prerequisites section of
On 28 June 2010 23:25, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Can we - if possible - concentrate again at improving GCC and its
infrastructure rather than doing this phantom debate? In case of
Nightstrike, we have an active tester and thus contributor to especially
MinGW64, who is also willing
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 23:35 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 28 June 2010 23:25, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Can we - if possible - concentrate again at improving GCC and its
infrastructure rather than doing this phantom debate? In case of
Nightstrike, we have an active
If a contributor wants the FSF to publish only a pseudonym, that is ok.
The contributor should say this, and state the desired pseudonym, when
answering the request- form. The actual legal papers will use the real
name, but the FSF will publish only the pseudonym.
I was unaware of that. I
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Bah! Someone already volunteered to do it in several occasions.
Myself, a long time ago. Someone else a few months ago, Frederic
Buclin volunteered to help and Nightstrike in that very same PR. The
answer was silence. It is not a matter of
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
But you (whoever you really are) should also realize that to submit
patches and have them accepted, you need to have some legal papers done
Bugzilla is not FSF-copyright code, and I see no reason we should require
assignments for people working
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
I will do my best to support whoever wants
to help with getting Bugzilla updated.
Gerald,
NightStrike has volunteered to help upgrade Bugzilla.
How do we move forward?
- David
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
go about it.
So who actually
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian had confidence in me. He
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Ben White wrote:
Would a modestly modified copy of Bugzilla be workable for that
something? I.E. Patchzilla?
We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to donate time
and effort, looking into
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to donate time
and effort, looking into upgrading that might be even preferrable.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011 for more
On 27 June 2010 11:32, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to donate time
and effort, looking into upgrading that might be even preferrable.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2010 11:32, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2010 11:32, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to
On 27 June 2010 20:45, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2010 11:32, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
I do believe that it is odd that one of the most important
free-software projects in terms of widespread use, a free-software
project that has a technical quality comparable and often superior to
the
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:35 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
I do believe that it is odd that one of the most important
free-software projects in terms of widespread use, a free-software
project
On 10 June 2010 22:05, Quentin Neill quentin.neill@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 June 2010 22:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The patch tracker (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Patch_Tracking) is not
currently operating.
Would
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
What we would need is some way to detect that patches have been
committed. Otherwise that list will grow uncontrollably very fast.
Imagine that :)
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2010 22:05, Quentin Neill quentin.neill@gmail.com wrote:
I have a python script which crawls, caches, and parses the gcc-cvs
(and binutils-cvs) email archive pages. I wrote it to help another
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Dave Korn wrote:
Here are a few of the people with access to the copyright list: me, Ian,
Benjamin Koznik, David Edelsohn, Andreas Schwab, Joseph Myers, Ralf
Wildenhues. This is not a complete list, just people that I remember.
I also have access and am happy to be asked
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 June 2010 22:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The patch tracker (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Patch_Tracking) is not
currently operating.
Would anybody like to volunteer to get it working again?
I'm not
Still, we'll see...
Apparently not :(
Why not? At most, you just need not to make sure nothing ever send
mail to people who think that kind of thing is bozoid...
M
On 8 June 2010 05:42, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/07/10 14:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The gcc project currently has a problem: when people who are not
regular gcc developers send in a patch, those patches often get
dropped. They
Reading gcc-cvs, or ChangeLogs, or other things like that is just way
too much time.
What about writing a small script that parses the main ChangeLogs? They are
supposed to be uniformly formatted. And ping messages shouldn't contain all
the junk of previous messages, just the ChangeLog (and
On 06/08/2010 06:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So perhaps the thing to do is somehow separate patches from regular
contributors and irregular contributors. A relatively easy way to do
this would be for a regular contributor to include a
On 8 June 2010 07:43, Chiheng Xu chiheng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Ben White ja_wal...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Would a modestly modified copy of Bugzilla be workable for that something?
I.E. Patchzilla?
Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on his/her own
On 8 June 2010 10:43, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 06/08/2010 06:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So perhaps the thing to do is somehow separate patches from regular
contributors and irregular contributors. A relatively easy
On 8 June 2010 11:17, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2010 10:43, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 06/08/2010 06:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So perhaps the thing to do is somehow separate patches from
On 7 June 2010 22:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The patch tracker (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Patch_Tracking) is not
currently operating.
Would anybody like to volunteer to get it working again?
I'm not volunteering, but I might look into it one day. I already
have too little spare time for
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
Reading gcc-cvs, or ChangeLogs, or other things like that is just way
too much time.
What about writing a small script that parses the main ChangeLogs? They are
supposed to be uniformly formatted. And ping messages
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:20 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach.
By the way, I wonder how many contributors can even think taking
seriously a message coming from NightStrike. Not me,
On 06/08/10 09:01, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Paolo Carlinipaolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:20 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach.
By the way, I wonder how many contributors can even think
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/08/10 09:01, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Paolo Carlinipaolo.carl...@oracle.com
wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:20 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach.
By
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Chiheng Xu chiheng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Ben White ja_wal...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Would a modestly modified copy of Bugzilla be workable for that something?
I.E. Patchzilla?
Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on
On 8 June 2010 17:42, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
git is an excellent tool to create and share patches. Maybe we should
have an open gcc git mirror with gitweb and every contributor can create
his/her own branches and publish them.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitMirror
I don't see how
On 06/08/2010 05:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on his/her own
local repository, and publish his/her repository. [...]
git is an excellent tool to create and share patches. Maybe we should
have an open gcc git mirror with gitweb and every
Are you volunteering to write that small script?
If nothing better comes out, why not, but resurrecting the Patch Tracker seems
to be a more appealing idea.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 09:21 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
Look, you don't want me to be here... fine. I get it. Enough is
enough already. Technical disagreements are one thing. Personal
attacks on me are just juvenile.
I don't see this as a personal attack.
Like Paolo, I'm a lot
On 06/08/2010 08:40 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
There is no personal attack involved.
For sure. Sorry if my quick remark could be interpreted in another way.
Paolo.
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 11:18 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I don't understand. WAA rights definitely allow you to shepherd and commit
patches from people without svn access, even for patches you can't approve.
And basile (and other WAA contributors), this would a nice
contribution.
On 06/08/2010 09:21 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 11:18 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I don't understand. WAA rights definitely allow you to shepherd and commit
patches from people without svn access, even for patches you can't approve.
And basile (and other WAA
On 08/06/2010 20:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Here are a few of the people with access to the copyright list: me, Ian,
Benjamin Koznik, David Edelsohn, Andreas Schwab, Joseph Myers, Ralf
Wildenhues. This is not a complete list, just people that I remember.
I also have access and am happy to be
On 6/8/10, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you volunteering to write that small script?
DUnno, are you volunteering to write that small script?
You're the only one here actually volunteering a forwardgoing
commitment of their time here to improve GCC's development in this
way, it
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
On 06/08/2010 05:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on his/her own
local repository, and publish his/her repository. [...]
git is an excellent tool to create and share patches. Maybe
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Martin Guy martinw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/10, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you volunteering to write that small script?
DUnno, are you volunteering to write that small script?
Sorry, no :(
You're the only one here actually volunteering a
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 14:09, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
threads that haven't been addressed. I offered to Ian to do the same
thing for the whole mailing list if we can make it a policy that
people who
On 6/7/10, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 14:09, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
threads that haven't been addressed. I offered to Ian to do the same
thing for the whole
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 14:09, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
threads that haven't been addressed. I offered to Ian to do the same
thing for the whole mailing list if
Recently on #gcc, I have been conversing with several others on the
topic of patches lost in the tides of the gcc-patches mailing list. I
flagged Jeff Downs' recent message as an example of a patch that has
been waiting since November
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
Recently on #gcc, I have been conversing with several others on the
topic of patches lost in the tides of the gcc-patches mailing list. I
flagged Jeff Downs' recent message as an example of a patch that has
been
Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
It's very trivial for me to read through a mailing list that I already
read, and scan for messages that say committed to branch B at
revision R. It's a lot more complicated to find out if something has
been committed myself,
On 06/07/2010 09:23 PM, NightStrike wrote:
Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
It's very trivial for me to read through a mailing list that I already
read, and scan for messages that say committed to branch B at
revision R. It's a lot more complicated to find
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:23 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ideally, after a day of this, people will start
sending such messages to effectively close threads, and then you'll
see very few messages from me.
That's a one way trip to my bozo bin...
Ciao!
Steven
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joern Rennecke
joern.renne...@embecosm.com wrote:
Quoting NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com:
Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
How about requiring that a patch should have an associated open PR with the
patch keyword to be
Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com writes:
On 06/07/2010 09:23 PM, NightStrike wrote:
Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
It's very trivial for me to read through a mailing list that I already
read, and scan for messages that say committed to branch B at
On 06/07/2010 10:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The question we face now is: are we willing to change our process in
order to improve it?
Maybe. Currently, I have zero problems with it.
And, if we are willing, is this specific change
a reasonable one to make?
No.
Paolo.
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, NightStrike wrote:
I suggested that a long time ago on irc, but was brutally shot down
for it. Apparently, most people hate bugzilla :( To be clear, what I
suggested was that every patch should have a PR. There is way too
much duplication of purpose between bugzilla,
On 06/07/10 14:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The gcc project currently has a problem: when people who are not
regular gcc developers send in a patch, those patches often get
dropped. They get dropped because they do not get reviewed, and they
get dropped because after review they do not get
On 06/07/2010 11:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/07/10 14:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The gcc project currently has a problem: when people who are not
regular gcc developers send in a patch, those patches often get
dropped. They get dropped because they do not get reviewed, and they
get dropped
Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com writes:
On 06/07/2010 10:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The question we face now is: are we willing to change our process in
order to improve it?
Maybe. Currently, I have zero problems with it.
I understand that you have no problems with the current
On 06/07/2010 11:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Can you expand? What kinds of process changes would be reasonable to
make?
Following the terminology irregular contributor, per Jeff message, I
would not consider unreasonable for irregular contributions to use more
extensively and consistently
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
