On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:04 am, Bastien Nocera
wrote:
I don't think you quite understand just how much trust was lost when a
member of the release team can't follow the goals we set ourselves as
a
project.
You broke that trust, then bumbled into breaking it again, fixed the
code, but never
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 5:13 pm, Jordan Petridis
wrote:
There's also c) include a temporary patch in gnome-build-meta till
the MR is merged,
though git will complain about the patch being already applied once
merged and break
the build.
There's also d) pin the module to your branch/fork of
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:04 am, Bastien Nocera
wrote:
I don't think you quite understand just how much trust was lost when a
member of the release team can't follow the goals we set ourselves as
a
project.
You broke that trust, then bumbled into breaking it again, fixed the
code, but
> Anyway, you can do this today by either (a) editing your .bst element
> to point to a tarball instead of git master (easy), or (b) asking
> release team to do this for you (we don't bite). So it's not a huge
> effort. The hardest part is remembering to change it back to git master
> when you're
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:04 am, Philip Withnall
wrote:
I don’t know anything about what the release team is doing with all
these modules, or why, but perhaps rather than the default being
“pull
in all the modules into an OS build and urgently push fixes to the
modules if something
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:16 pm, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
FWIW, mutter and gnome-shell (and others too I suspect) only allow
maintainers to merge to master (due to a lack of better granularity in
the community edition of GitLab), but that is primarily due to us
using
marge-bot, so while
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:21 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:08 +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:06 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > This is likely a migration problem, as the project was originally
> > > in
> > > Jonas' personal namespace, right?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:16 +0100, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, mutter and gnome-shell (and others too I suspect) only allow
> > maintainers to merge to master (due to a lack of better granularity
> > in
> > the community
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:16 +0100, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>
> FWIW, mutter and gnome-shell (and others too I suspect) only allow
> maintainers to merge to master (due to a lack of better granularity
> in
> the community edition of GitLab), but that is primarily due to us
> using
> marge-bot, so
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:08 +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:06 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > This is likely a migration problem, as the project was originally
> > in
> > Jonas' personal namespace, right? All the projects under the GNOME
> > namespace should have the same
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:08:50PM +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:06 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > This is likely a migration problem, as the project was originally in
> > Jonas' personal namespace, right? All the projects under the GNOME
> > namespace should have the
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:06 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> This is likely a migration problem, as the project was originally in
> Jonas' personal namespace, right? All the projects under the GNOME
> namespace should have the same settings allowing anyone in the
> project to commit anything and
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 11:57 +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 15:57 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:28 pm, Philip Withnall
> wrote:
> > Given that you’ve just committed to submitting MRs and waiting for
> > CI
> > to pass, rather than pushing
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 11:57 +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 15:57 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:28 pm, Philip Withnall
> wrote:
> > Given that you’ve just committed to submitting MRs and waiting for
> > CI
> > to pass, rather than pushing
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 15:57 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:28 pm, Philip Withnall
wrote:
> Given that you’ve just committed to submitting MRs and waiting for
> CI
> to pass, rather than pushing directly to master, perhaps this rule
> should be rethought?
Hm... as
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 15:15 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 7:53 pm, Bastien Nocera
> wrote:
> > "I need to remember not to [push commits directly to the main
> branch]
> > for your modules, sorry"
>
> I was trying to be sincere, not dismissive:
>
> mcatanzaro:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:28 pm, Philip Withnall
wrote:
Given that you’ve just committed to submitting MRs and waiting for
CI
to pass, rather than pushing directly to master, perhaps this rule
should be rethought?
Hm... as long as we have permission to merge the MR after CI has
passed, or
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 15:15 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > And similar behaviour over the years where you seemed to be under
> the
> > impression that I was the only person in GNOME that felt that
> peer-
> > reviewed patches and CI-gated merge requests were a requirement.
> >
> > Until
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 7:53 pm, Bastien Nocera
wrote:
> "I need to remember not to [push commits directly to the main branch]
> for your modules, sorry"
I was trying to be sincere, not dismissive:
mcatanzaro: "I need to remember not to for your modules, sorry"
"Can hardly complain about
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 10:06 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday, after I committed the typo to Calendar, I promised to use
> merge requests from now on when committing build fixes. Previously, I
> had promised to do this only for your projects, but yesterday I
> forgot,
> and
Hi,
Yesterday, after I committed the typo to Calendar, I promised to use
merge requests from now on when committing build fixes. Previously, I
had promised to do this only for your projects, but yesterday I forgot,
and not for the first time. I understand that's frustrating. From now
on,
(I tried to send this to the release-team@ alias/mailing-list, but that
was shuttered last August, so seeing as it would be public on discourse
anyway)
On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 09:31 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Hi developers,
>
> Please remember that action is required when updating your
>
On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 16:50 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 09:31 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Hi developers,
> >
> > Please remember that action is required when updating your
> > dependencies
> > or build options. You need to either make sure gnome-build-meta is
>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:31 am, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
We've had at least four separate breakages from four separate projects
Make that seven breakages from six projects. Thanks to everyone who
helped with getting these back under control. With a little luck, maybe
we'll get a successful
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:21 PM Philip Withnall wrote:
> Or, if it’s appropriate, the bot could file an issue against gnome-
> build-meta and assign the developer who’s touching meson.build to that
> issue. Or something.
>
We can reduce false positives by having it happen when the output of
On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 09:31 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Hi developers,
>
> Please remember that action is required when updating your
> dependencies
> or build options. You need to either make sure gnome-build-meta is OK
> with your changes, or ask release team to investigate on your
Hi developers,
Please remember that action is required when updating your dependencies
or build options. You need to either make sure gnome-build-meta is OK
with your changes, or ask release team to investigate on your behalf.
We've had at least four separate breakages from four separate
27 matches
Mail list logo
