done!
http://live.gnome.org/HackergotchiGuidelines
cheers,
El dg 30 de 12 del 2007 a les 19:10 +0100, en/na Wouter Bolsterlee va
escriure:
> 2007-12-21 klockan 00:49 skrev Federico Mena Quintero:
> > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 18:33 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> >
> > > So either the list o
2007-12-21 klockan 00:49 skrev Federico Mena Quintero:
> On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 18:33 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
>
> > So either the list of guidelines is horribly long, or the co-maintainers
> > are not doing their job. I'd like to know who they are, if you please,
> > so that I can hel
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 18:33 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> So either the list of guidelines is horribly long, or the co-maintainers
> are not doing their job. I'd like to know who they are, if you please,
> so that I can help :)
OK, I won't bother you with this any more. Andreas Nilsson
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:26:52PM +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I think setting up a public mailing list like pgo-devel, just like most
> other GNOME projects have, could be part of the solution here. I don't
> think a public debate about pgo on our foundation mailing list is
> helping our commu
On Dec 19, 2007 4:26 AM, Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 18:33 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 15:06 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> > I just find it funny that this has been going on since September.
> > That's three months to write
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 18:33 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 15:06 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> I just find it funny that this has been going on since September.
> That's three months to write a few guidelines and give the OK to some
> co-maintainers.
>
> So either the
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 15:06 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> > Who's on the "potential maintainership team" for PGO, so that we may
> > inquire them about the progress?
>
> Sorry, but I'm not going to get caught up in pointless crap like this. Some
> folks may think it's okay to treat me differently
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 15:52 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> An even smaller number think they should be on
> Planet GNOME because they write rants about GNOME or KDE and think that's an
> important contribution. That was never the intention of Planet GNOME. :-) A
> substantial proportion of these issue
> I think any sort of editorial control other than good old individuals
> common sense would break this spirit.
The 'editorial control' I speak of is *only* about whose blogs are included
on Planet GNOME, not what they write once they are included.
> I believe what is at issue here is that ther
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 14:34 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I have not used Planet GNOME, and I have no opinions about how it is
> run. However, a site without editorial control, on which people can
> post whatever they like, should not be "the public face of GNOME". If
> it is perceived that w
I have not used Planet GNOME, and I have no opinions about how it is
run. However, a site without editorial control, on which people can
post whatever they like, should not be "the public face of GNOME". If
it is perceived that way, that is a problem.
To solve this problem does not necessarily m
Ar Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:06:11PM +1100, ysgrifennodd Jeff Waugh:
>
>
> > But please don't ignore the question I asked:
> >
> > Who's on the "potential maintainership team" for PGO, so that we may
> > inquire them about the progress?
>
> Sorry, but I'm not going to get caught up in pointless c
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 18:38 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > You've been asked to be more open, don't get annoyed if people are pissed
> > by closed non-answers!
>
> I'm mostly annoyed at the attitude rather than the questions (even the ones
> that have already been answered). I don't really fee
On Dec 14, 2007 11:38 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > You've been asked to be more open, don't get annoyed if people are pissed
> > by closed non-answers!
>
> I'm mostly annoyed at the attitude rather than the questions (even the ones
> that have already been answered). I don't r
> You've been asked to be more open, don't get annoyed if people are pissed
> by closed non-answers!
I'm mostly annoyed at the attitude rather than the questions (even the ones
that have already been answered). I don't really feel an obligation to give
answers to people who have negative intent,
Jeff Waugh a écrit :
>
>
>> But please don't ignore the question I asked:
>>
>> Who's on the "potential maintainership team" for PGO, so that we may
>> inquire them about the progress?
>
> Sorry, but I'm not going to get caught up in pointless crap like this. Some
> folks may think it's okay to
On Dec 14, 2007 11:17 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I should have avoided responding to the trolling in the first place.
Wow... Really first class response. Good job at avoiding an answer too
--
Og B. Maciel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG Keys:
> Ok... what exactly is wrong with my usage of "effort"?
Sorry, I should have avoided responding to the trolling in the first place.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008
"I think his crackpipe is mixed with helium or something." - Colin
On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You thanked Federico for his "efforts". That's what I read, and that's what
> I responded to.
Definitions of effort on the Web:
* attempt: earnest and conscientious activity intended to do or
accomplish something; "made an eff
> On Dec 14, 2007 10:54 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please don't turn this into something it is not. I had already been
> > working on this before threads on this list, and before Federico's
> > recent mails. It is not particularly motivating to see the issue
> > approached in t
> But please don't ignore the question I asked:
>
> Who's on the "potential maintainership team" for PGO, so that we may
> inquire them about the progress?
Sorry, but I'm not going to get caught up in pointless crap like this. Some
folks may think it's okay to treat me differently as a result o
On Dec 14, 2007 10:54 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please don't turn this into something it is not. I had already been working
> on this before threads on this list, and before Federico's recent mails. It
> is not particularly motivating to see the issue approached in this way.
Dude
> Federico,
>
> Thank you for spearheading this.
Please don't turn this into something it is not. I had already been working
on this before threads on this list, and before Federico's recent mails. It
is not particularly motivating to see the issue approached in this way.
- Jeff
--
linux.con
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 09:51 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > What I want to resolve is this:
>
> So do I, as already noted.
>
> > "Sucking guidelines out of my head" --- that's exactly the kind of
> problem
> > we need to solve.
>
> That's why I mentioned it.
But please don't ignore the quest
Federico,
Thank you for spearheading this. My experience with PGO has been very
smooth and I definitely do not have any complaints about the
maintenance of it. However, a few weeks ago there were several posts
with a very different view of it. I agree with your initiative to turn
this great projec
> What I want to resolve is this:
So do I, as already noted.
> "Sucking guidelines out of my head" --- that's exactly the kind of problem
> we need to solve.
That's why I mentioned it.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/
"The two [sepa
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 08:24 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> The module's maintainership isn't sucking in general, but there have been a
> number of periods in which it hasn't been great. Please don't make this out
> to be worse than it is, that kind of approach doesn't help resolve anything.
What I wa
> > It's somewhat more intricate than that -- I'm writing it up atm, so
> > people can understand the decision making process (guidelines). That's
> > the first step. :-)
>
> Ping. Any progress on this, so the editorial policy can be linked from
> Planet?
>
> Also, Dave's idea about having a c
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:20 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > The current "editorial control" is simply more or less "if you ever
> did
> > something peripherally related to GNOME, you can be on Planet,
> regardless
> > of what you post".
>
> It's somewhat more intricate than that -- I'm writing
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 22:38 -0400, Germán Poó Caamaño wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:02 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
[snip]
> > What I mean is that once you are syndicated in Planet, you can post
> > whatever you want.
> >
> > That's why we have people posting all sorts of things that a
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:27 +0200, Pascal Terjan wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Planet GNOME is about the people moreso than the project. We talk about the
> > project *all the time*. The reason why I started Planet GNOME (and Planet!)
> > was to read about and bette
> I am more concerned about big posters, posting almost everyday some
> long text and for who I have never seen any GNOME related post, and
> who I never read anything from them except their blog on planet
> (should I really give names ?).
>
> People complain about the number of posts everyday and
Hi,
2007/9/13, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Vincent Untz wrote, On 13/09/07 11:00:
> > Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007, à 17:37 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
> >>> Because despite Gnome is people, I think that for most people, Planet
> >>> Gnome is primarily about Gnome.
> >> No
> Jeff Waugh wrote, On 13/09/07 11:43:
>
> > > The planet is not a newspaper or a magazine, it is just a planet.
> > > That censorship / editorial line idea doesn't make any sense to me.
> >
> > I hope that this is a similar effect to that of great design -- you
> > don't notice the editors
Jeff Waugh wrote, On 13/09/07 11:43:
>> The planet is not a newspaper or a magazine, it is just a planet. That
>> censorship / editorial line idea doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> I hope that this is a similar effect to that of great design -- you don't
> notice the editorship because Planet
> The planet is not a newspaper or a magazine, it is just a planet. That
> censorship / editorial line idea doesn't make any sense to me.
I hope that this is a similar effect to that of great design -- you don't
notice the editorship because Planet is highly readable and reflective of
the people
Vincent Untz wrote, On 13/09/07 11:00:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007, à 17:37 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
>>> Because despite Gnome is people, I think that for most people, Planet
>>> Gnome is primarily about Gnome.
>> No. The way planet started, it was about people. Or friends in fact
On 9/13/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Planet GNOME is about the people moreso than the project. We talk about the
> project *all the time*. The reason why I started Planet GNOME (and Planet!)
> was to read about and better understand the *people*. That's why full feeds
> are preferred
> But I'm 100% fine with this since we still didn't change most of the world
> to understand French; hopefully we will get there soon! ;-)
This would be an entirely reasonable catalyst for applying censorship to
Planet GNOME.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnom
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007, à 17:37 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
> > Because despite Gnome is people, I think that for most people, Planet
> > Gnome is primarily about Gnome.
>
> No. The way planet started, it was about people. Or friends in fact.
> I personally am not interested in readi
Hi,
Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> For my part, if I had anything else to argue it would be that
> p.g.o. should be handled by a formal team whos members could
> be subject to change from time to time (as I suggested before,
> possibly a marketing team or web team) - as opposed to "add
> someone e
На чет, 2007-09-13 во 09:40 +0200, Luca Cappelletti напиша:
> Which is why a transparent process is really really
> important.
> Requests should be handled through bugzilla because then
> everyone can see that it is all open and all allegations about
> nepo
On 9/12/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:...
3. Jeff doesn't like you.
> 4. Jeff doesn't like your blog.
> 5. Jeff doesn't like your politics.
> 6. Neither you nor your blog is elite enough.
> 7. planet.gnome.org in an old boys club.
-1
...
Which is why a transparent process is re
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:02 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 09:13 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >
> > > We have no editorial control. Get over it :)
> >
> > We absolutely *do* have editorial control at the moment. The challenge I
> > have at the moment is to conti
> That's why full feeds are preferred over GNOME-specific tags
Minor point: I do mean 'preferred'. If someone has a good reason for wanting
only their GNOME-related posts on Planet I'm cool with that, but I always go
back to ask before putting them up. So no knicker-twisting, censorship nuts!
-
> I think that asking people to have tags/categories on their blogs and not
> aggregate everything would be better than having all the content of the
> ones who arrived first.
Planet GNOME is about the people moreso than the project. We talk about the
project *all the time*. The reason why I sta
> The current "editorial control" is simply more or less "if you ever did
> something peripherally related to GNOME, you can be on Planet, regardless
> of what you post".
It's somewhat more intricate than that -- I'm writing it up atm, so people
can understand the decision making process (guidel
> I'd even go one step further saying than most people care about gnome and
> gnome apps, and not about one's cats and the other's culinar niceties.
> Because despite Gnome is people, I think that for most people, Planet
> Gnome is primarily about Gnome.
Well, that's counter to the original pur
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 09:13 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > We have no editorial control. Get over it :)
>
> We absolutely *do* have editorial control at the moment. The challenge I
> have at the moment is to continue that, while improving what people see to
> be the drawbacks of the current p
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:33 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 12:21 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> >
> > Well, gnome is people that have a choice to contribute or not - making
> > those people (i.e. you me and everyone else) feel accepted and important
> > is central to hav
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 06:26 -0700, Sanford Armstrong wrote:
> I know their are a few random blog posts floating around, but I'd like
> to see something on l.g.o that documents the suggested workflow for
> git-svn/bzr-svn/hg-svn/etc. Is it really a passable solution to all
> this? Does it help reg
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 21:56 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 04:00 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > [...]
> > > It's also related to *why* people
> > > want to be on Planet GNOME -- for instance, it sucks that some people make
> > > blogs solely to be published on Planet GNOME.
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 12:21 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>
> Well, gnome is people that have a choice to contribute or not - making
> those people (i.e. you me and everyone else) feel accepted and important
> is central to having a healthy project where everyone wants to be
> involved.
But i
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 04:00 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> [...]
> > It's also related to *why* people
> > want to be on Planet GNOME -- for instance, it sucks that some people make
> > blogs solely to be published on Planet GNOME.
>
> Curiously, why does that suck ?
>
> Not everybody likes to ma
On 9/12/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All aggregation sites go through a process, like mailing lists, where as
> the number of participants goes up, the relevance and quality goes down.
> Look at O'Reilly's Radar, when there was only Tim, and no when there are
> 14 or 15 people postin
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
[...]
> Planet GNOME without a strong editorial control would probably suck.
> Just like maintainers vouch and check patches in each of their modules,
> we need to have some control on blogs getting added to planet. And
> that's Jeff's module
Dave Neary a écrit :
> Julien PUYDT wrote:
>> Tristan Van Berkom a écrit :
>>> I think its important to note here that giving someone access to blog
>>> on planet gnome is like publicly aknowlaging that they are indeed a part
>>> of the gnome community - people who contribute to the project need to
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007, à 14:27 +0200, Julien PUYDT a écrit :
> Vincent Untz a écrit :
> > + a few people are trying to fix the current process by writing the
> >software needed (for NewAccounts, but I imagine it could be extended
> >for things like planet). Maybe help is needed to
> OK. But please, could someone tell us what's this Editorial Control all
> about?
Sure, it's about the quality and relevance of what appears on Planet GNOME.
As you note, "relevance" does not mean relevance of blog content to the
project, but of people to the project. It's also related to *why
> Which is why a transparent process is really really important.
I agree, though I've had concerns figuring out the things you raised next:
> Oh, and I don't believe the argument that "feelings might get hurt if
> someone is publicly rejected." If someones ego is so fragile that it
> breaks by
On 9/12/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is not true, but it is not laughable. I don't for a second doubt
> that you do not censor planet.gnome.org. But many months ago I emailed
> you and asked to get my blog syndicated. I never got any reply and
> left it as that because I didn
On 9/12/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just not going to get caught up in all this alarmism about censorship. I
> can't imagine why anyone would think I could get away with actual censorship
> of Planet... it would be laughable if it wasn't so mean spirited.
It is not true, but it
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:11 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> At what point do we recognise that editorial control is necessary for
> the planet to remain a useful resource?
OK. But please, could someone tell us what's this Editorial Control all
about?
How does this Editorial Control balances with the
Hi,
Julien PUYDT wrote:
> Tristan Van Berkom a écrit :
>> I think its important to note here that giving someone access to blog
>> on planet gnome is like publicly aknowlaging that they are indeed a part
>> of the gnome community - people who contribute to the project need to
>> feel like they ar
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 02:42 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> > Currently it seems like there is even more sensorship in planet membership
> > than svn access
>
> I'm just not going to get caught up in all this alarmism about censorship. I
> can't imagine why anyone would think I could get away with
> *sigh*, I wonder what you are basing this claim on, maybe there's an
> archived thread that you could reffer us to which details that ?
Unfortunately my blog didn't have comments at the time, so most of the
responses to this were on IRC or by mail. It's mentioned fairly regularly
even now. Pla
Tristan Van Berkom a écrit :
> I think its important to note here that giving someone access to blog
> on planet gnome is like publicly aknowlaging that they are indeed a part
> of the gnome community - people who contribute to the project need to
> feel like they are part of the project.
Agreed.
On 9/12/07, Tristan Van Berkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That way you get democracy at both ends - posting and viewing.
> >
> > GNOME is not democratic. :-)
>
> Well, gnome is people that have a choice to contribute or not - making
> those people (i.e. you me and everyone else) feel accepted
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 01:14 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
[...]
> Just so everyone knows: That is *extremely* unlikely to happen. There has
> been significant support for the editorial stewardship of Planet GNOME for
> ages now. When I last considered making it a free-for-all, there was a *LOT*
> of pus
Hi,
Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>> I would suggest opening pgo as a free-for-all for those with commit access
>
> Just so everyone knows: That is *extremely* unlikely to happen. There has
> been significant support for the editorial stewardship of Planet GNOME for
> ages now. When I last considered mak
> > I wonder if this control in itself is a source of frustration to some
> > people who've been contributing code to the gnome project and want to
> > brag about it on planet gnome
>
> The planet-web hacking file says the editorial policies "seem fascist",
> which seems to acknowledge that view
>> We absolutely *do* have editorial control at the moment. The challenge I
>
> I wonder if this control in itself is a source of frustration to some
> people who've been contributing code to the gnome project and want
> to brag about it on planet gnome
The planet-web hacking file says the editor
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 09:13 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > We have no editorial control. Get over it :)
>
> We absolutely *do* have editorial control at the moment. The challenge I
> have at the moment is to continue that, while improving what people see to
> be the drawbacks of the current p
Vincent Untz a écrit :
> + a few people are trying to fix the current process by writing the
>software needed (for NewAccounts, but I imagine it could be extended
>for things like planet). Maybe help is needed to get things ready
>(and maybe not), but nobody proposed to help :/
Ah, if
Le mardi 11 septembre 2007, à 18:14 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero a écrit :
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 15:56 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>
> > That's exactly like how NewAccounts [1] work. So, just use that process
> > for planet. Pros:
>
> NewAccounts is our current process, which means endless
> We have no editorial control. Get over it :)
We absolutely *do* have editorial control at the moment. The challenge I
have at the moment is to continue that, while improving what people see to
be the drawbacks of the current process (which can almost entirely be
summarised as slow response pa
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 15:56 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> That's exactly like how NewAccounts [1] work. So, just use that process
> for planet. Pros:
NewAccounts is our current process, which means endless delays and a lot
of screaming.
Right now I don't care about the reasons why it is so;
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 17:19 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> Some editorial control for planet is essential - there are already so
> many feeds that the planet's become less useful - we're up to 50 or 60
> posts a day.
>
> The question is how to marry reactivity to requests and accountability
> with th
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 14:50 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 14:05 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
>
> > Put another way, I would find it uncomfortable to say someone "sorry,
> > you don't belong here", so these situations should be avoided.
> >
> > I think that adding
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 14:05 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
> Put another way, I would find it uncomfortable to say someone "sorry,
> you don't belong here", so these situations should be avoided.
>
> I think that adding a requirement for the applicant to have someone from
> the community to spons
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 13:39 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>
> > If you are feeling super-paranoid, we can have a "Planet" module on
> > bugzilla, and we can point people to a page with instructions:
> >
> > 1. Get a bugzilla account.
> >
> > 2. File a bug under the Planet module.
> >
> > 3. A n
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:30 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:30 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> > planet-web already exists, but making it a free-for-all isn't a useful
> > solution.
>
> I re-read http://perkypants.org/blog/2005/06/10/1118362980/ and it
> mentions the
Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:30 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> planet-web already exists, but making it a free-for-all isn't a useful
>> solution.
>>
>
> I re-read http://perkypants.org/blog/2005/06/10/1118362980/ and it
> mentions the possibility of making the
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:30 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> planet-web already exists, but making it a free-for-all isn't a useful
> solution.
I re-read http://perkypants.org/blog/2005/06/10/1118362980/ and it
mentions the possibility of making the SVN module essentially a
free-for-all.
.. And I quit
Hi,
David Bolter wrote:
> I like this idea. I guess if we trust someone to commit code we should
> trust them not to abuse the planet... errr at least not planet-gnome
> anyways.
Some editorial control for planet is essential - there are already so
many feeds that the planet's become less usef
Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 21:56 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> I know Planet GNOME maintenance has been patchy -- I've been thinking about
>> ways to alleviate that while keeping strong editorship in place. The Board
>> has prompted me about this too, so I have plent
I often just sit in #commits on irc.gnome.org...
Works pretty well for me :)
Cheers,
Kevin Kubasik
On 9/11/07, Paolo Borelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Il giorno lun, 10/09/2007 alle 17.40 -0400, Claudio Saavedra ha scritto:
> > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 17:01 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> >
Il giorno lun, 10/09/2007 alle 17.40 -0400, Claudio Saavedra ha scritto:
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 17:01 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> >
> > Then the daily summary could be in the planet gnome feed, perhaps.
> >
> > I don't know, I'm sure there are better solutions, and it's academic
> > unless
> Bringing it back to the present, there's stuff on svn.mugshot.org that
> really belongs on gnome.org, but it seems it didn't end up there. I don't
> think this was a conscious thing, but I think it probably was due to just
> enough of a barrier to create a new gnome module.
This happens with m
> $ bzr init-repo --trees some-project
> $ cd some-project
> $ bzr checkout http://url/to/some-project
> $ bzr branch mainline working
> $ cd working
> $ ./configure
> $ make
>
> ...compared to the same steps using svn...
>
> $ svn co http://url/to/some-project/trunk some-project
> $ cd some-pr
> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 21:56 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> > I know Planet GNOME maintenance has been patchy -- I've been thinking
> > about ways to alleviate that while keeping strong editorship in place.
> > The Board has prompted me about this too, so I have plenty of incentive
> > to resolve
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:41 -0700, Sanford Armstrong wrote:
> On 9/8/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I simply meant that less people are familiar with D-SCM tools and that
> > > they are somewhat harder for a newbie to learn than C-SCM tools.
> >
> > This is an unfortunate
Hi,
I hate to do this but... again... please move this discussion to a
more appropriate mailing list like d-d-l or gnome-infrastructure.
Thanks,
--lucasr
2007/9/11, Sanford Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 9/8/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I simply meant that less
On 9/8/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I simply meant that less people are familiar with D-SCM tools and that
> > they are somewhat harder for a newbie to learn than C-SCM tools.
>
> This is an unfortunate cultural relic created by arch/tla, and hilariously
> promulgated by git.
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:42 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Anyway. I'm not sure the old cvs-commits-list type approach really
> scales to GNOME's current size, but I think something *was* lost.
Yes, something definitely was lost. It was quite pleasant to see commit
messages go by; people cared
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 05:23:28PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:21 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
>
> > That's the way things are handled ATM. With the exception that only Jeff
> > is supposed to commit to the appropriate file (there's a README or
> > HACKING som
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:21 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
> That's the way things are handled ATM. With the exception that only Jeff
> is supposed to commit to the appropriate file (there's a README or
> HACKING somewhere there).
Well, we can certainly stea^H^H^H^Hfree Jeff from the drudgery of
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 17:01 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> Then the daily summary could be in the planet gnome feed, perhaps.
>
> I don't know, I'm sure there are better solutions, and it's academic
> unless someone turns up who decides to try and code something. Just
> throwing out ideas.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 03:05:18PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 10:17 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> Hi, Olav,
>
> > You are ignoring the central place. You need somewhere all GNOME devs
> > are able to commit. This is what is so wrong about
> > www.gnome.org/~foo/
Hi,
On 9/10/07, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> svn-commits-list exists and you can limit the email receive to one or
> more projects (or all).
Right, but like I said I'm not sure it scales anymore; there's too
much stuff in svn to want to get an email per commit. If you limit to
only y
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
