Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included council members. I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to the council. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included council members. I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to the council. Best regards, Stu FWIW, there was almost an hour's worth of discussion before the start of the log KingTaco posted. As a bystander, my guess is that the discussion took place in the devrel channel because a complaint about the use of the bugzilla whiteboard by the sunrise folks was brought up in that channel. The compromise was made to defuse further escalation to a formal complaint to devrel. /Anders - -- Anders Hellgren (kallamej) Gentoo Forums Administrator -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEm5a5FX025WX+RG4RAvVOAKCQICkWz0MTJ4snNN0mdNT1MF/aWQCgrtQ2 rL5SMgybISpQLn7Lh52UO8A= =Y6ad -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Anders Hellgren wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included council members. I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to the council. Best regards, Stu FWIW, there was almost an hour's worth of discussion before the start of the log KingTaco posted. As a bystander, my guess is that the discussion took place in the devrel channel because a complaint about the use of the bugzilla whiteboard by the sunrise folks was brought up in that channel. The compromise was made to defuse further escalation to a formal complaint to devrel. /Anders -- Anders Hellgren (kallamej) Gentoo Forums Administrator OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs somewhere else from bugzilla. You know very well I had no problem w/ assigning them, I just requested them to be clearly marked as such (which the users have been doing, thank you for that). Since some developers consider such use of bugzilla as misuse of Gentoo infrastructure and have gone so far that they involved devrel in this discussion, I'm not going to assign those bugs any more. Your 'thank you' goes especially to brix, your complaints go to devrel as a body that proclaimed themselves empowered to decide on acceptable bugzilla usage. There's no technical difference between using bugzilla for unofficial java migration overlay hosted on gentooexperimental.org and using it for unofficial overlay hosted on gentoo-sunrise.org (and even usage of keywords and status whiteboard for unofficial overlays counts as a misuse of bugzilla here). Devrel's current policy clearly is that bugzilla may only be used for official overlays hosted on overlays.gentoo.org, Sorry for the inconvenience, not my fault. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.17 kernel stabilisation plan
Daniel Drake wrote: Testing of 2.6.17 is very much appreciated, please also file bugs against problems you have with the kernel itself :) For the e1000 driver to work on my new ThinkPad X60s I had to patch Linux 2.6.17. It would be nice if this patch that I found in a bugtracker (IIRC, in the kernel's) could be adopted for gentoo-sources. -- Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Jakub Moc wrote: Anders Hellgren wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included council members. I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to the council. Best regards, Stu FWIW, there was almost an hour's worth of discussion before the start of the log KingTaco posted. As a bystander, my guess is that the discussion took place in the devrel channel because a complaint about the use of the bugzilla whiteboard by the sunrise folks was brought up in that channel. The compromise was made to defuse further escalation to a formal complaint to devrel. /Anders -- Anders Hellgren (kallamej) Gentoo Forums Administrator OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs somewhere else from bugzilla. You know very well I had no problem w/ assigning them, I just requested them to be clearly marked as such (which the users have been doing, thank you for that). Since some developers consider such use of bugzilla as misuse of Gentoo infrastructure and have gone so far that they involved devrel in this discussion, I'm not going to assign those bugs any more. Your 'thank you' goes especially to brix, your complaints go to devrel as a body that proclaimed themselves empowered to decide on acceptable bugzilla usage. There's no technical difference between using bugzilla for unofficial java migration overlay hosted on gentooexperimental.org and using it for unofficial overlay hosted on gentoo-sunrise.org (and even usage of keywords and status whiteboard for unofficial overlays counts as a misuse of bugzilla here). Devrel's current policy clearly is that bugzilla may only be used for official overlays hosted on overlays.gentoo.org, Sorry for the inconvenience, not my fault. Umm maybe it's just to early in the morning, but I don't see anything in the logs regarding using bugzilla for overlays not on overlays.gentoo.org. I only see references to sunrise specifically, not a blanket statement for all non-overlays.gentoo.org overlays Or was this part of a discussion / decision that wasn't on this mailing list...? Josh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Qt use flag recap
Ok, so there are two fundamental ideas here: 1) Keep the qt use flag, use it if a package offers qt3 or qt4 support. If both, then make it for the more recent version and add a local flag for qt3 support. A few of us like this one, including me. The downside to this is you get a USE that may look like qt -qt3 which is a bit ugly. Upside is that it just works. 2) Remove qt use flag, and create qt3 and qt4 global flags. This is what a few others are behind. It's more descriptive of what's actually going on, but will disrupt ~30 packages that currently use the qt flag. I suppose I'm not really big on one versus the other. I was for #1 simply because it required the least amount of effort to implement, however the people who are in favor of #2 have volunteered to do the work to implement it as well as put qt3 into the use.defaults for 2006.1 so KDE will work out of the box. I'm not inclined to go against them simply because I don't see a big downside to going to qt3/qt4 global flags as long as someone is willing to do the work. So, as long as nobody comes up with a major objection, consider this my recommendation to allow portage to move to the #2 scenario. The it just works now excuse isn't valid, either. And, if it turns out the change really sucks..well...we can always figure out something else. :) Comments and flames are most welcome. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 22:18 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 06:50 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote: OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs somewhere else from bugzilla. The gentoo-java developers have been working their tails off for over a year to do a massive migration (far broader reaching than the average GCC major version upgrade). That you would turn around and tell them to begone from Gentoo bugzilla with this work is really a bit off colour. No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is stupid, unfair and stupid. They deserve every possible accolade we can give them for their dedication to the cause, and every bit of support we can muster to help them see this project through to completion. I agree with you there. While I'd prefer to get rid of Java I don't let that influence my behaviour towards the project (or I'd have kicked them off my server a long time ago!) I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon. Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack on the persons and not on the technical structure. wkr, Patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Seemant Kulleen wrote: First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? Not sure either, maybe brix will be able to answer your question better. What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. Uhm, what I am saying here is that we can either have a *general* policy on acceptable bugzilla usage, or no policy at all. Inventing ad-hoc policies for a single project just because a couple of folks dislike that project does not do any good and does not make any sense either. The whole concept of status whiteboard and keywords usage constituting a misuse of Gentoo infrastructure is pretty new to me. That stuff is there to make searching for bugs and their grouping easier, and as such has been used. Then someone comes to #-devrel with the above complaint, and devrel (or some its member) within an hour decides that all such keywords and status whiteboard records need to be nuked from bugzilla? What are the grounds for such decision, and why it's OK for one unofficial project to use bugzilla for their bugs, and why it's so horribly wrong for another unofficial project to even pollute those fields, without actually creating new bugs? That's what this thread is about, and that's why I have brought this up. Not to harm java migration and java folks. As I have stated already, I have no problem with their bugs, I've even talked to nichoj some weeks ago to arrange it in the best possible way. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Seemant There would not be any issue if devrel didn't act the way they did, the matter has not been urgent at all. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Seemant Kulleen wrote: This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. +1 (with gusto!) -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
Patrick Lauer wrote: No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is stupid, unfair and stupid. Wow, you are incredibly good at dismissing the actual argument that many folks have raised against sunrise, and instead inserting the waaahh!!! they aren't treating us the same!!! argument. In fact, there is no reason to be treated the same in this case. The council decided that sunrise was to be suspended, which in my mind constitutes a total scorched earth policy with respect to the use of any sort of Gentoo infra in any way. The council did not decide that the java overlay was to be suspended, ergo the java overlay can use Gentoo infra as a resource. I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon. Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack on the persons and not on the technical structure. Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches a point that you have nothing meaningful to say. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
Stephen P. Becker wrote: Patrick Lauer wrote: No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is stupid, unfair and stupid. Wow, you are incredibly good at dismissing the actual argument that many folks have raised against sunrise, and instead inserting the waaahh!!! they aren't treating us the same!!! argument. In fact, there is no reason to be treated the same in this case. The council decided that sunrise was to be suspended, which in my mind constitutes a total scorched earth policy with respect to the use of any sort of Gentoo infra in any way. The council did not decide that the java overlay was to be suspended, ergo the java overlay can use Gentoo infra as a resource. Frankly said, neither council nor devrel have any say in suspending projects hosted outside of gentoo, be it sunrise, gentopia, java-migration, java-experimental, BMG, or whatever else. You just can't dictate unpaid people what are they going to do in their free time (though some people would probably like to...) - so, please don't move this debate off-topic. I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon. Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack on the persons and not on the technical structure. Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches a point that you have nothing meaningful to say. So... sunrise has been suspended, moved to it's own domain, moved to non-gentoo hardware - and some people still are not satisfied and need to find something to annoy the bunch of people working on it. And, as there's not much left, they take something really childish and ridiculous, such as bugzilla keywords and status whiteboard, and run to devrel to ask for an urgent decision? What's this, if not a personal thing? -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 19:05 -0500, Mike Doty wrote: All- We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise. Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now. Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them. [snip log] Ok if I may chime in. Some people seem to have a problem with devrel enforcement of a council recommendation. As the council itself was never asked to make a hard decision on the fate of sunrise, but only asked to discuss it. We the council discussed it and made a soft recommendation. So to me it appears that devrel is doing it's job and is perfectly within bounds in the following up of council recommendation till such time as sunrise matures enough to be re-evaluated. With respects to Gentoo trademarks. That is a foundation issue and would have to be raised with them. -- Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Doty wrote: All- We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise. Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now. Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them. I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie because it wasn't a technical decision. it's a temporary compromise until whatever governing party can make a decision on to how to handle it. I made a compromise that both sides are able to live with until the council makes a decision. This is what developer relations should be doing. I'm sorry if you view this as a show of force or if you feel that I've overstepped by bounds, I did what I felt was correct to diffuse a situation and got people back to what they are supposed to be doing, developing, not fighting. -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Recruitment Lead Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:43:23AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included council members. I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to the council. Best regards, Stu It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting. This is what I did. I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put forth yesterday. -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Recruitment Lead Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Seemant Kulleen wrote: First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds (not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it is :) I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP overlay, the webapps overlay...etc... This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Seemant Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess. For once I'm not going to step on devrels balls for this one. Someone had to do something. For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting nailed for it because its not their place. Am I thrilled with the outcome? No not really. Apparently neither is Jakub. Thats all fine. Can always overturn it later. Or we can discuss it endlessly here with no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper use of bugzilla is. Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all the time and compromise with other projects*. * Including projects currently suspended. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
This was originally supposed to go into another thread, but hey - this is a perfect illustration of what I am going to talk about (to unconfuse Seemant right away - this is not related to your posting but rather to the situation that lead to it). I really was considering sending this as a theoretical musings email (pointed at spyderous primarily? he seems to enjoy my rare postings like these :)), but well, looks like I'll have to be somewhat serious for a change. Executive summary: There is a (by now) well established knowledge on group dynamics depending on its size, involving parameters such as Dubnar's number for example. Two references I spotted just recently (well, Ok, they are from 2004 actually :)) can be found below: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/03/what_is_the_opt.html (and here is a more scientific writing, a base article for which the above two are kind of illustratory/anecdotal evidence types: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs0565-00/bbs.dunbar.html ) The first two are kind of extreme in their coverage - one talks about MMORG guilds and another about terrorist cells, but hey, who said we are that different ;)? Both talk about social structure/critical sizes of the groups at small and medium scale. Social networks brought together towards implementing some common goal, so I say observations similar to those should apply to us too. It looks like we are now at that tipping point. herdstat tells me we are some 233 developers atm, which sounds damn close to that magical number of 150 active group participants (in our case that would correspond to reasonably active regular devs, i.e. the ones who do general maintaince, participate in discussions (by at least trying to read them) and at least sometimes emerge from that one small project they are in..). The suggestion maybe this whole screaming is a something inherent to the group size has been voiced recently a few times. So yes, to me this indeed seems very likely to be the case. Ironically, the later push to cleanse inactive devs, coupled with successfull recruitment may have been the thing that pushed us over (remember, dead souls don't count).. So, what is the pont I am trying to make? Well, basically I just want to say that the problem is real and won't go away by periodically screaming be nice to each other, since it seems to be inherent to a group size. We cannot just reduce our numbers - it does not work this way. If anything, we need *more* people, not less :). However at this point we cannot grow either. The main idea of the original (3rd cited) paper is that this is a real limit, imposed by the amount of housekeeping interactions that are needed to sustain a group of that size, it is the way we are as species. As you push more people in, more start leaving and for a group to grow past that limit it has to restructure, assume a more diffuse interaction/more role division perhaps? (Similarly, just putting some *one* at the top won't work either without restructuring the group. In fact it seems to work worse for the groups that are over the small group limit). So, yes, we have to adress it, and lets try to do it right. However lets not take this lightly, I sense a lot of fights involved :), but I am optimistic of eventual outcome.. (But don't ask me for a grand plan - I don't have one, I hope evolution forces will help us sort things out :)). George PS. A short short summary of critical group sizes. I really need to refresh my memory on that stuff though.. Small groups - 5 to 9, optimal - 7,8 People concentrate on one common problem and interact very closely. Medium groups - 25 to 150, optimal 80-90 (but when there is a clear bias to add people (shiny idea/something valuable/commonly recognized as necessary) it is stable at a maximum of ~150). Often involves tight small subgroups, normally specialized, general interaction is loose but still on a personal level (even if not very intensive) Large groups - I only remember the upper limit of ~2000 for those and I am rusty on what is the failing factor. Seems like a Debian situation to me (with most everybody else, us included, stuck at a medium group level). Commertial entities often overcome these issues of scale by imposing a chain-of-command structure, effectively splitting into smaller subgroups and having a hierarchial structure made of those. However this arrangement is explicitly deemed unsuitable by many developers (according to voiced opinions in the past). I suppose we can think about some loose arrangement of small and medium groups, may be even some minor modifications to our project structure can help (make Top level projects = medium group, subproject = small group). This one is apparent of course, but, as usual, the devil is in the details (people doing work in different areas and, most importantly,
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 09:58 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: With respects to Gentoo trademarks. That is a foundation issue and would have to be raised with them. Well, if it doesn't follow the guidelines[1], then it is improper usage and would either need to adhere to the guidelines or quit using our trademarks. If they are not following the guidelines, then it should be brought to the trustees, as solar mentioned. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
Patrick Lauer wrote: No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is stupid, unfair and stupid. Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an 'unofficial overlay'. I take it that an official overlay would be one that's hosted on overlays.g.o? If that's the case, our overlays have been around for at least a year (that's when I started using it as a user), and probably longer than that... which was before overlays.gentoo.org was even around. Additionally, the overlays are managed by the our team, and have been an integral part of our project, having been referenced for some time from our 'official' IRC channel and our project page. In my mind, this effectively make the overlays our 'official overlays'. I agree with you there. While I'd prefer to get rid of Java I don't let that influence my behaviour towards the project (or I'd have kicked them off my server a long time ago!) I'm sure you'll be happy to know we'll be moving to overlays.gentoo.org as soon as reasonably possible. Note: this was already planned, and it isn't me trying to be grumpy about the direction this discussion seems to be going. We would have moved sooner, but mostly we've been busy working on the migration stuff, so likely won't happen until we've moved that into the tree. - Josh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:09:24 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because | he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over | another? One unofficial project that has screwed up so badly that the council has had to step in and say no to it, as opposed to an unofficial project that has not attracted complaints and that is being worked into the tree? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: Frankly said, neither council nor devrel have any say in suspending projects hosted outside of gentoo, be it sunrise, gentopia, java-migration, java-experimental, BMG, or whatever else. You just can't dictate unpaid people what are they going to do in their free time (though some people would probably like to...) - so, please don't move this debate off-topic. They didn't suspend the project working outside Gentoo. They suspended it working *inside* Gentoo, which is what prompted the move in the first place. I'm not really sure where you think that this makes it off-topic. Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches a point that you have nothing meaningful to say. So... sunrise has been suspended, moved to it's own domain, moved to non-gentoo hardware - and some people still are not satisfied and need to find something to annoy the bunch of people working on it. And, as there's not much left, they take something really childish and ridiculous, such as bugzilla keywords and status whiteboard, and run to devrel to ask for an urgent decision? What's this, if not a personal thing? Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look* official. Using InOverlay as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo official overlay is a prime example of this. Let's look at it this way. If someone from Sunrise were to say this ebuild is available in our overlay in a comment, nobody would really have a problem. Having someone with an @gentoo.org address setting InOverlay makes it look like Gentoo is endorsing the overlay. Remember that when you use your @gentoo.org address, you're speaking for Gentoo in the user's eyes. Using InOverlay would be the same as someone from BMG (that happened to be a developer) doing it because it is in the BMG overlay. It's simply not accurate. Now, the java team is an official Gentoo project, unlike Sunrise. I don't see how a non-Gentoo project and an official Gentoo project are similar in this regard, at all, but you're welcome to keep arguing it that way. ;] Of course, I haven't seen any of the bugs in question to see exactly what it is that they were doing, I'm just making an observation based on what I've been seeing in this thread. Really, people... just because someone has a problem with your *IDEA* doesn't make it an attack on *YOU*. It just means they don't like your idea. Plain and simple... -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
Mike Doty wrote: It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting. This is what I did. I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put forth yesterday. I agree that it is devrel's place to help people find a compromise. I disagree that it is devrel's place to set general technical policy based on this compromise by saying All non-Gentoo hosted overlays are subject to this when the compromise does not involve all the relevant people. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Joshua Nichols wrote: Umm maybe it's just to early in the morning, but I don't see anything in the logs regarding using bugzilla for overlays not on overlays.gentoo.org. I only see references to sunrise specifically, not a blanket statement for all non-overlays.gentoo.org overlays Or was this part of a discussion / decision that wasn't on this mailing list...? Mike Doty wrote: Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Alec Warner wrote: I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds (not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it is :) I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP overlay, the webapps overlay...etc... No, because those are now hosted by Gentoo. Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess. For once I'm not going to step on devrels balls for this one. Someone had to do something. For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting nailed for it because its not their place. Am I thrilled with the outcome? No not really. Apparently neither is Jakub. Thats all fine. Can always overturn it later. Or we can discuss it endlessly here with no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper use of bugzilla is. Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all the time and compromise with other projects*. Yes, but as Seemant said, all those affected in the decision should be involved (or at least represented) in the compromise. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote: Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an 'unofficial overlay'. No, this is about a project that was supposed to be suspended until its details have been hashed out. ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpTMHLTlUUKB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look* official. Using InOverlay as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo official overlay is a prime example of this. Let's look at it this way. If someone from Sunrise were to say this ebuild is available in our overlay in a comment, nobody would really have a problem. Having someone with an @gentoo.org address setting InOverlay makes it look like Gentoo is endorsing the overlay. Remember that when you use your @gentoo.org address, you're speaking for Gentoo in the user's eyes. Using InOverlay would be the same as someone from BMG (that happened to be a developer) doing it because it is in the BMG overlay. It's simply not accurate. It's exactly as accurate as the keyword description [1] is, i.e.: snip A case where someone is working on this maintained-needed ebuild in an overlay to test their fixes before including it in an ebuild in the tree. /snip So, be it BMG or sunrise or whatever else, it's an appropriate use of that keyword, and there's nothing there suggesting that the overlay is an official one. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:09:24 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because | he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over | another? One unofficial project that has screwed up so badly that the council has had to step in and say no to it, It's entirely possible that I missed some important message, but as far as I know, council hasn't said either yes or no to it, and the overlay as hosted on o.g.o is suspended only until a council decision is made. as opposed to an unofficial project that has not attracted complaints and that is being worked into the tree? Quoting the original message: Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them. Please explain to me how any non-gentoo hosted overlay can possibly be an exception to this. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? The jave unofficial overlay is well on its way to becoming an official and officially hosted overlay. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message? Not at all. I've been back on the gentoo-dev list for three weeks, and the actual dev part of it has been pretty much missing. This list would be more ideal as gentoo-rant, gentoo-torture-every-reader-with-endless-threads, gentoo-lets-not-get-along, gentoo-babies, gentoo-childishness, we can come with a few more. My personal view is apparently starting to be more public here, so I'll be plain: I think developers needs to all seriously reconsider what they are doing with Gentoo and why. I'm not advocating anything other than a bit of introspection on why people do this to begin with. In the past few weeks, I've seen devs get at each others' throats; and worse still at users' throats. And really, it's a little too much already. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Also, just so I'm clear on my stance on this: I don't care one whit about whether those keywords are used in bugzilla or not. Keywords are a way to help bugzilla users use bugzilla. As for perceptions about it -- as long sunrise is clear on their pages that they are absolutely not official as of yet, I don't think we run into any issues, officially. There may be users who do get that perception. On the other hand, you will have people who walk by a sign that says sale today and ask when exactly the sale is. We can't, and should not, hold everyone's hand. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? The jave unofficial overlay is well on its way to becoming an official and officially hosted overlay. And once it is, it can be given special treatment. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message? Not at all. I've been back on the gentoo-dev list for three weeks, and the actual dev part of it has been pretty much missing. This list would be more ideal as gentoo-rant, gentoo-torture-every-reader-with-endless-threads, gentoo-lets-not-get-along, gentoo-babies, gentoo-childishness, we can come with a few more. Maybe discussions have been focused on policy more than development itself, but for the most part (yes, there have been exceptions), they have still been focused on Gentoo. You seem to be making it personal, which is over the line for me. My personal view is apparently starting to be more public here, so I'll be plain: I think developers needs to all seriously reconsider what they are doing with Gentoo and why. I'm not advocating anything other than a bit of introspection on why people do this to begin with. That is a good idea regardless. In the past few weeks, I've seen devs get at each others' throats; and worse still at users' throats. And really, it's a little too much already. Your frustration is understandable, but I think you took it out on the wrong message, and very possibly the wrong person. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Doty wrote: It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting. This is what I did. I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put forth yesterday. I agree that it is devrel's place to help people find a compromise. I disagree that it is devrel's place to set general technical policy based on this compromise by saying All non-Gentoo hosted overlays are subject to this when the compromise does not involve all the relevant people. Thanks, Donnie What you're missing here is that I did not make a technical decision. I implemented the councils recommendations in such a manner as to not piss off either side too much. If you're familiar with US leagalize, you should view this as a temporary injunction. I implore you and other interested developers to address the remaining points through constructive discussion and then ask the council to make a final decision. Here are a list of points that I feel need more discussion: 1. Different types of overlays: gentoo.org vs. non-gentoo.org and developer focused vs. user focused. 2. Appropriate use of bugzilla for overlays of all varieties. 3. Appropriate use of www.gentoo.org/proj for overlays. -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Recruitment Lead Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Qt use flag recap
On Friday 23 June 2006 14:16, Tuan Van wrote: I don't really object to #2 but please do inform current users so thing still work after an `emerge world -Du` That's why we're going to ask them to be added to default useflags :) -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpfMLlyELJqU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Alec Warner wrote: I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds (not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it is :) I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP overlay, the webapps overlay...etc... No, because those are now hosted by Gentoo. Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess. For once I'm not going to step on devrels balls for this one. Someone had to do something. For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting nailed for it because its not their place. Am I thrilled with the outcome? No not really. Apparently neither is Jakub. Thats all fine. Can always overturn it later. Or we can discuss it endlessly here with no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper use of bugzilla is. Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all the time and compromise with other projects*. Yes, but as Seemant said, all those affected in the decision should be involved (or at least represented) in the compromise. Thanks, Donnie You're right, not everyone was represented. It was a response to the problem at hand. If the other overlay people feel that they need to be represented, I will hold a 2nd meeting to address their specific issues. Assuming that a significant amount of overlay managers want, I will hold this meeting at Sunday 1800 UTC in #gentoo-devrel on freenode. Please post your specific problems on this (sub) thread by Saturday 1800 UTC so I at least have 24 hours to understand and ask questions before the meeting. -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Recruitment Lead Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Executive summary: There is a (by now) well established knowledge on group dynamics depending on its size, involving parameters such as Dubnar's number for example. Two references I spotted just recently (well, Ok, they are from 2004 actually :)) can be found below: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/03/what_is_the_opt.html (and here is a more scientific writing, a base article for which the above two are kind of illustratory/anecdotal evidence types: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs0565-00/bbs.dunbar.html All three were very informative, were we to actaully task a commitee (of seven people!) to take a look at how we interact, it would be an interesting job I think; perhaps leading to some ideas on how to reorganize ourselves. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:33:21PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 18:07 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? The jave unofficial overlay is well on its way to becoming an official and officially hosted overlay. And once it is, it can be given special treatment. We're talking around each other, let's stop. I'm not advocating that the overlay keywords for sunrise cease -- as I stated in another part of this thread: I do not care one way or the other. I don't think it is appropriate, however, to make other projects hostage because you don't like what's going on with your pet project. Agreed, but I don't think there's any reading of the original message that allows continuing use of Gentoo's bugzilla for Java's overlay until it is hosted by Gentoo, so I don't consider this Jakub's decision. Maybe discussions have been focused on policy more than development itself, but for the most part (yes, there have been exceptions), they have still been focused on Gentoo. You seem to be making it personal, which is over the line for me. I'm pretty sure I have not made it personal. I'm not addressing any one in particular on these, nor do I have anything against any parties (or for any parties for that matter). I'm sorry if you took my words that way, that was certainly not the intent from this side. It was mostly the gentoo-babies reference to this list that I considered name-calling and a bit too much, even if it wasn't directed at any single person in particular. If I misunderstood you, sorry. Your frustration is understandable, but I think you took it out on the wrong message, and very possibly the wrong person. I know what I did, and they were both the correct target. We can take this off-list and include Jakub himself in it, if you're dying to know. I think Jakub himself knows full well *exactly* where I came from and why. If there's something between you and Jakub that I'm not aware of, I'll stay out of that. It doesn't affect my opinion on this specific topic, though. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Qt use flag recap
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose I'm not really big on one versus the other. I was for #1 simply because it required the least amount of effort to implement, however the people who are in favor of #2 have volunteered to do the work to implement it as well as put qt3 into the use.defaults for 2006.1 so KDE will work out of the box. You mean make.defaults here, right? Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
I've been thinking about Solar's email. I believe Solar is actually very correct in his assessment. I think I'll recant my initial statement about devrel. To KingTaco and the gang: my apologies, you guys did the right thing at the time. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] VNC packages need your help [pre-emptive last rites]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donnie Berkholz wrote: Not really, tightvnc isn't on this list ... is there some reason you can't use it instead? tightvnc doesn't provide the vnc.so module for X. x11vnc can do the job, but it's unstable for me and quite sluggish... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEnEKm6q4f+IV6B/wRAnoHAJ9UpEwZSCIbvPNhm+/xGBwXh4WlPQCfeF8I mJQ/Yh4d0StyozdHu5tdCRw= =SQKz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 1/2 OT: Comprehensive Source Database
* Andrew Cowie [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi, It may or may not be what you want, but what you've described sounds very close to what Mark Shuttleworth articulated as the vision behind launchpad. https://launchpad.net/ on a short view, I didn't see any parallels to my source-db project. LT seems to be some collaboration / project management platform, not a database of package releases and their URLs. BTW: I've now got the base structure and some crawlers running. An very simple frontend can be seen on http://sourcefarm.metux.de/ Anyone who likes to contribute, please subscribe to the maillist oss-qm-discuss (@metux.de) via [EMAIL PROTECTED] cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cellphone: +49 174 7066481 - -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- - -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.17 kernel stabilisation plan
Greg KH wrote: Have a link for this patch? Sorry, I forgot to give it in my original posting: http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/bugme-new/2006-June/006422.html Best, Sebastian -- Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.17 kernel stabilisation plan
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:43:49AM +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: Greg KH wrote: Have a link for this patch? Sorry, I forgot to give it in my original posting: http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/bugme-new/2006-June/006422.html That bug does not include a patch that has been accepted yet, so there's not much to add to our kernel package :) thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Qt use flag recap - qt3 and qt4 as default?
Hmm...Are thre any packages out there which *must* be built against the same qt as (the rest of) kde? If so, I don't think qt4 should be in the default use flags until KDE4 hits arch. This keeps people from reporting issues with KDE apps built against the wrong version of QT. --Arek On 6/23/06, Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Caleb Tennis wrote: 2) Remove qt use flag, and create qt3 and qt4 global flags. It allows proper use.masking. Thanks. people who are in favor of #2 have volunteered to do the work to implement it as well as put qt3 into the use.defaults for 2006.1 so KDE will work out of the box. What should happen to qt4? I think it should be in make.defaults because qt is in make.defaults. So initially we need to do for make defaults: s/qt/qt qt3 qt4/ I would like this to happen retroactively for all current profiles so that no one gets broken when we migrate all ebuilds. After the conversion the qt use flag can be removed from the profiles. waiting for qt3 default flag to migrate my ebuilds :) Regards, Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is currently unofficial. Therefore, technically, if it is against the rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial overlays, then it is against the rules for the java team to use bugzilla for their migration-overlay. As for the fact that the migration overlay is in the process of being moved to o.g.o, in the process of doesn't mean it's already been done, and until it's finished, the above statement stands. Props *and* apologies to the java team for this, but it looks like you need to move the overlay *before* you finish the migration process now. As for java being a project and sunrise not being a project, if it was the intention of devrel to stop unofficial *projects* from using bugzilla, then that's how they should've worded their ruling. --Arek P.S. I do beleive that devrel may have been a little out of line in doing this. People need to think about the consequences of making (potentially far-reaching) rulings like the one made in this case. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
