[Thomas Goirand, 2015-10-06]
> On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons
> >> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and
> >
> > it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to
On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons
>> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and
>
> it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to have more
> maintainers with few packag
On Oct 06, 2015, at 03:12 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
>What CI tools are you using with GitLab CE?
We don't run CE; we use the hosted EE at gitlab.com. But anyway, we have a
custom VM on which we run the GitLab runner software in a docker image. This
runs our test suite in all supported Python 3s aga
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:05 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>>Interesting. It's the first time I hear about it, I thought it was just
>>closed source.
>
> The instance at gitlab.com is the non-free Enterprise Edition (EE). EE has
> features we proba
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I don't know about plugging in zuul and nodepool, but the CE does have CI
> integration, which we use in the GNU Mailman project, and seems to work
> great.
What CI tools are you using with GitLab CE?
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"A s
On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:05 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>Interesting. It's the first time I hear about it, I thought it was just
>closed source.
The instance at gitlab.com is the non-free Enterprise Edition (EE). EE has
features we probably don't care about ayway. The Community Edition (CE) is
MIT/
On 10/06/2015 05:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 06, 2015, at 08:39 AM, Brian May wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>>> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not
>>> just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package even befor
On 10/06/2015 05:26 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2015-10-06 09:28:56 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> Master != kilo. It still means that I have to do all of the backport
>>> work by myself.
>> [...]
>>> I know that it's the common a
[Thomas Goirand, 2015-10-06]
> You're still avoiding to answer what are the conditions for me to get
> back in the team.
he did answer and I did as well (see my first private email to you).
One more time: you were removed from the team because you promise to
change behaviour and then repeat the s
On Oct 06, 2015, at 08:39 AM, Brian May wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not
>> just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package even before
>> having them committed to our git.
>>
>
>Sounds l
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-10-06 09:28:56 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Master != kilo. It still means that I have to do all of the backport
>> work by myself.
> [...]
>> I know that it's the common assumption that, as the package maintainer
>> in Deb
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:03:54PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 01:02 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:39:48AM +, Brian May wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>
> >>> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review syst
On 10/06/2015 01:02 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:39:48AM +, Brian May wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>>> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not
>>> just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package
On 2015-10-06 09:28:56 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Master != kilo. It still means that I have to do all of the backport
> work by myself.
[...]
> I know that it's the common assumption that, as the package maintainer
> in Debian, I should volunteer to fix any issue in the 6+ million line
On 10/06/2015 01:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you
>>> to re-engage productively.
>> I wrote it to you privat
On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you
> > to re-engage productively.
> I wrote it to you privately. You can't just tell that it's going to be a
>
(I was asked not to reply anymore, and I was doing it quite happily,
but since it involves a private conversation between Thomas and me, I
need to step in)
>> I think that generally when one transgresses on someone else's package in a
>> way the maintainer doesn't like it's the responsibility of
On 10/06/2015 03:31 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when
>> called
>>> on it. If you'd just reacted with someth
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:39:48AM +, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not
> > just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package even before
> > having them committed to our git
Thomas Goirand writes:
> You can't write this:
>
> On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > causes me to doubt the sincerity of this.
>
> and this:
>
> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I don't think you're intentionally malicious.
>
> a few hours apart, and get away wi
You can't write this:
On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> causes me to doubt the sincerity of this.
and this:
On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I don't think you're intentionally malicious.
a few hours apart, and get away with it. Take your pick... am I an evil
liar
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote:
> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not
> just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package even before
> having them committed to our git.
>
Sounds like an interesting thing to discuss/test after we move t
On 10/05/2015 11:11 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this
>> kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen.
>
> Ubuntu at least does have a technical solutio
On 10/05/2015 11:17 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:00 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> The things you listed that I help maintain - mock, testtools, etc -
>> are *not* OpenStack specific. They existed before OpenStack, and
>> likely will exist after. They have other users, particul
Hi,
Le 05/10/2015 20:27, Julien Puydt a écrit :
(3) git-dpm init ../foo_version.orig.tar.gz (start using git-dpm)
That point takes actually longer, because one needs to have the tarball
around ; this is now wishlist bug #801086 against git-dpm
( https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-05 23:24, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>
>> How about: We move away existing repositories, and put the
>> migrated ones in the /packages/ path. If people have existing
>> repositories, that t
On 10/06/2015 02:49 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-10-05 23:45:57 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> [...]
>> Upstream will *not* fix the issue, because you know, they "fixed" it in
>> their CI by adding an upper version bound in the pip requirements, which
>> is fine for them in the gate.
On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you to
> re-engage productively.
I wrote it to you privately. You can't just tell that it's going to be a
temporary ban, without giving a timeline. You avoided to answer my
ques
28 matches
Mail list logo