On 00:11 Sat 18 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Alec Warner wrote:
On 8/17/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what do you think of comment #14 in Bug 185567 ?
i think that plus having hooks for all phase funcs ...
+1 for pkg_maint
i was
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Richard Brown wrote:
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt
trust it
You wouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
perhaps it'd be useful to introduce an anal_die. developers run anal
tests,
users get sane tests.
-mike
Anal ftw
-Alec
Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-BEGIN PGP
perhaps it'd be useful to introduce an anal_die. developers run anal tests,
users get sane tests.
-mike
Anal ftw
-Alec
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful when it
started to die on bad programming practices QA messages. These happen a
lot and often are beyond our direct control because it may not
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful when it
started to die on bad programming practices QA messages. These happen a
lot and
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 13:40 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful when it
started to die on bad programming practices QA messages. These happen a
lot and often are beyond our direct control
On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful when it
started to die on bad
On Friday 17 August 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being
В Птн, 17/08/2007 в 13:18 -0700, Donnie Berkholz пишет:
On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful
i can make it more selective about which ones actually die ...
Would be
On 8/17/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Also known as
On 8/17/07, Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
В Птн, 17/08/2007 в 13:18 -0700, Donnie Berkholz пишет:
On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful
i can make it more
On Friday 17 August 2007, Alec Warner wrote:
On 8/17/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200,
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 05:40 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
sure...except in another thread, we're saying it's ok for non-maintainers to
bump packages, and i'm here to tell you, when that happens they rarely confirm
things like missing deps or whether it dies during a build.
What? They won't
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
we're not talking developers, we're talking users.
Nope, because the point of the die is for the developer to catch it
during testing. Before commit to tree, so the user never has a chance to
experience it.
it's inappropriate for a
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
we're not talking developers, we're talking users.
Nope, because the point of the die is for the developer to catch it
during testing. Before commit to tree, so the user never
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
-mike
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
bumping? Surely everyone does that before they call echangelog and
repoman?
--
Richard Brown
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
On Monday 06 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Richard Brown wrote:
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
bumping?
you cant tell me the build experience a
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:36:23AM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
-mike
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
bumping? Surely everyone
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 05:38:25 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Richard Brown wrote:
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt
trust it
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 08:06:07 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
- HOMEPAGE changes
- LICENSE changes
- arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWORD
changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencies
for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
because TODO wasn't
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:13 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
- arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWORD
changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencies
for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but really are
required to make
On Monday 06 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Sorry, I didn't
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:56:47 +0200
Jurek Bartuszek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just thinking aloud - why not add some (QA?) notice in the summary
when dodoc (and possibly other do*'s) fails? One would be instructed
to file a new bug when he sees it *and*, after all, the package will
have still
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting
KEYWORD changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional
dependencies for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but
really are
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:49:58 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should someone have to go through all of that just to make these
minor fixes? Is it really necessary for someone to be required to try
to track down and contact the maintainer to tell them that they put
ebiuld
Ask for forgiveness, not permission.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
list of trivial changes
There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers
can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit
more controversial, so I'm asking for input.
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
list of trivial changes
There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers
can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit
more controversial, so I'm
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
because TODO wasn't around. Vote against || die - it doesn't affect
anything aside from misc docs not
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
because TODO wasn't around. Vote against || die - it doesn't affect
Petteri Räty wrote:
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
because TODO wasn't around. Vote against || die - it
More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
maintainers to assure that a package is being taken care of, not to
establish some kind of
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[snip]
There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers
can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit
more controversial, so I'm asking for input.
- Version bumps where the only requirement is to cp the ebuild
This is
Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti:
More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
maintainers to assure that a package is being taken care of,
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So, what do you guys think?
One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is there a
system to email any changes done to ebuilds maintained by developer
Philipp Riegger kirjoitti:
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So, what do you guys think?
One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is there a
system to email any changes done to
Petteri Räty wrote:
Philipp Riegger kirjoitti:
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So, what do you guys think?
One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is there a
system to email
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 01:34 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
So, what do you guys think?
One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is there a
system to email any changes done to ebuilds maintained by
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:19 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[snip]
There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers
can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit
more controversial, so I'm asking for input.
- Version
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
maintainers to assure that a
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 01:23 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti:
More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
Donnie Berkowitz wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Philipp Riegger kirjoitti:
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So, what do you guys think?
One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is
Mike Doty wrote:
Donnie Berkowitz wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Philipp Riegger kirjoitti:
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So, what do you guys think?
One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 04:06:25PM -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
We really need to get a -commits mailing list going again. If the
subject and/or sender are set appropriately, it should be easy to filter
for items of interest.
some of us infra types were entertaining a RS feed for this...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
maintainers to
49 matches
Mail list logo
