On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 07:57:59 EDT
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> I disagree. From what I see of the industry and its practices, I think the
> risk of an attack on Free Software due to lack of providence issues is
> INCREASING, not decreasing. As FLOSS software makes more and
> If someone used a fake name when explicitly asked for a real name,
> why should I trust him to not violate copyright?
I agree. Remember that we're working mostly on trust here: the
indemnification isn't worth anything at all from an individual since they
don't have any assets to back it up.
Richard Kenner wrote:
I do understand the rationale for the FSF's desire to hold copyright,
and have a paper trail. But, at this point, I think that's making it
harder to people to participate, and with no real benefit. The FSF is
clinging to an outmoded policy due to a single occurrence from l
> I do understand the rationale for the FSF's desire to hold copyright,
> and have a paper trail. But, at this point, I think that's making it
> harder to people to participate, and with no real benefit. The FSF is
> clinging to an outmoded policy due to a single occurrence from long ago.
I disa
On 06/30/2010 09:43 PM, NightStrike wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
He understood your point very well. That is why Frank said, "You
falsely presume zero vetting."
Maybe I didn't get the zero vetting part, then. I thought I did, but
apparently not. What does t
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Thanks for the info. So there is now a provenance, which is the point:
> there is a more-or-less real person associated with each contribution.
> I certainly would like the FSF to move to a similar model.
I agree.
I do understand the rationale for the FSF's desire to h
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> He understood your point very well. That is why Frank said, "You
> falsely presume zero vetting."
Maybe I didn't get the zero vetting part, then. I thought I did, but
apparently not. What does that mean in this context? Google isn't
tel
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>
>> NightStrike writes:
>>
>>> [...]
So who actually said no?
>>>
>>> The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
>>> real-looking-but-just-as-fake name,
I meant pillow of course ;) ;)
Paolo.
On 06/30/2010 07:44 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> No idea. I've been emailed offlist by 3 people that used fake names.
> Or at least claimed to.
>
Personally, I have trouble believing that (unless we have independent
evidence that they also sleep with a 44 Magnum under the napkin).
In any case, per
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 07:32 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> In consultation with other overseers, I rejected your request. I did
>>> not ask for a "real-looking-but-just-as-fake name", but a "real name".
>>> You falsely presume zero vetting.
>>>
>> You m
On 06/30/2010 07:32 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> In consultation with other overseers, I rejected your request. I did
>> not ask for a "real-looking-but-just-as-fake name", but a "real name".
>> You falsely presume zero vetting.
>>
> You missed my point, then. What's in a name? How would you k
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> NightStrike writes:
>
>> [...]
>>> So who actually said no?
>>
>> The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
>> real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a account
>> for me.
>
> In consultation
NightStrike writes:
> [...]
>> So who actually said no?
>
> The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
> real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a account
> for me.
In consultation with other overseers, I rejected your request. I did
not ask for a "r
Jonathan Corbet writes:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:11 -0700
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I am doing what I can. However, looking at other projects doesn't help
>> very much because most other projects simply don't worry about these
>> issues. That is, for example, why the Linux kernel was v
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:11 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I am doing what I can. However, looking at other projects doesn't help
> very much because most other projects simply don't worry about these
> issues. That is, for example, why the Linux kernel was vulnerable to
> the SCO lawsuit
I
NightStrike writes:
> Maybe there's a way to look at how other projects handle the same
> issue, and find a different solution that's more workable for more
> people. I don't know what event you are specifically referring to in
> the GCC history that created this situation, but I don't think it'
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> NightStrike writes:
>
>> It's not just present on "social community" sites. Look at the
>> entirety of sourceforge. That's quite a large respository of free
>> software, and yet it consists 100% of fake-named people (and please
>> unde
NightStrike writes:
> I presented what I would need - access to the current code, as well as
> the database.
So as I understand it, you can access the code, right? There is of
course nothing confidential in the bugs database. I have put a copy
created by mysqldump at
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc
NightStrike writes:
> It's not just present on "social community" sites. Look at the
> entirety of sourceforge. That's quite a large respository of free
> software, and yet it consists 100% of fake-named people (and please
> understand what I mean by that.) It's even a place where projects get
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 29 June 2010 13:23, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>> This whole issue has focussed in a little problem about the final step
>>> (installing bugzilla in sourceware.org), whereas there is so much work
>>> to do before reaching that step, tha
On 29 June 2010 13:23, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> This whole issue has focussed in a little problem about the final step
>> (installing bugzilla in sourceware.org), whereas there is so much work
>> to do before reaching that step, that probably the person that starts
>> this work won't be the same th
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 29 June 2010 05:40, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> Then you should consider using legitimate account creation policies.
>> If I just put "John Smith" in the sign up form, I would have gotten an
>> account.
>
> Not necessarily, there are mainta
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
>> The free software community works on a web of trust and personal
>> relationships. If you prefer to remain pseudonymous, then you must
>> accept that you will not be at the center of that web.
>
> I agree. Openness is an important part of
> The free software community works on a web of trust and personal
> relationships. If you prefer to remain pseudonymous, then you must
> accept that you will not be at the center of that web.
I agree. Openness is an important part of the free software community
and I don't believe that applies
ine of how to go about things that someone else will
ignore / throw away sounds like a bigger waste of time than trying to
jump through the patch pinging horror.
> This whole issue has focussed in a little problem about the final step
> (installing bugzilla in sourceware.org), whereas t
On 29 June 2010 01:39, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> Manu, I have no problem supporting you in implementing a Bugzilla
> upgrade if you are still interested.
I won't have time before September for sure, most probably early October.
Still, I don't understand why a shell account is required to start
On 29 June 2010 05:40, NightStrike wrote:
>
> Then you should consider using legitimate account creation policies.
> If I just put "John Smith" in the sign up form, I would have gotten an
> account.
Not necessarily, there are maintainers with approval rights who
haven't got shell access, it's very
NightStrike writes:
> It would have been courteous for you -- or Frederic, or anyone else --
> to have communicated that to me instead of just ignoring me.
Yes. I was not part of the conversation stream. I apologize on behalf
of Frank (not Frederic). He should have replied.
>> Giving somebo
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> NightStrike writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>>
Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
go about it.
>
NightStrike writes:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>> Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
>>> go about it.
>>
>> So who actually said no?
>>
>> David
>>
>
> The Frederic guy
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I will do my best to support whoever wants
> to help with getting Bugzilla updated.
Gerald,
NightStrike has volunteered to help upgrade Bugzilla.
How do we move forward?
- David
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> But you (whoever you really are) should also realize that to submit
> patches and have them accepted, you need to have some legal papers done
Bugzilla is not FSF-copyright code, and I see no reason we should require
assignments for people workin
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Bah! Someone already volunteered to do it in several occasions.
> Myself, a long time ago. Someone else a few months ago, Frederic
> Buclin volunteered to help and Nightstrike in that very same PR. The
> answer was silence. It is not a matter of vol
> "If a contributor wants the FSF to publish only a pseudonym, that is ok.
> The contributor should say this, and state the desired pseudonym, when
> answering the request- form. The actual legal papers will use the real
> name, but the FSF will publish only the pseudonym."
I was unaware of that.
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 23:35 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 28 June 2010 23:25, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >
> > Can we - if possible - concentrate again at improving GCC and its
> > infrastructure rather than doing this phantom debate? In case of
> > Nightstrike, we have an active tester and t
On 28 June 2010 23:25, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Can we - if possible - concentrate again at improving GCC and its
> infrastructure rather than doing this phantom debate? In case of
> Nightstrike, we have an active tester and thus contributor to especially
> MinGW64, who is also willing to work on
(Off topic)
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> But you (whoever you really are) should also realize that to submit
> patches and have them accepted, you need to have some legal papers done
> with the FSF (copyright transfer or disclaimer, see the "legal
> prerequisites" section of http://gcc.gnu.org/co
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:08 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> You guys need to realize how online identities work in this century.
>
> Everyone realize that.
>
> But you (whoever you really are) should also realize that to submit
> patch
> While I do understand the reasons people want to hide with a pseudonym
> on many forums (or social sites), I don't understand why someone want to
> hide his identity when contributing to GCC (and therefore, after having
> done the legal work of getting the legal papers signed...).
I don't either
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:08 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>
> You guys need to realize how online identities work in this century.
Everyone realize that.
But you (whoever you really are) should also realize that to submit
patches and have them accepted, you need to have some legal papers done
with t
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
>> real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a sourceware
>> account for me. He then ignored my
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
> real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a sourceware
> account for me. He then ignored my followup emails asking for
> clarification.
Other people can
On 06/28/2010 04:11 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> You guys need to realize how online identities work in this century.
>
>From "The Hound of the Baskervilles", Arthur Conan Doyle, 1902:
"Out of the envelope he took a half-sheet of foolscap paper folded
into four. This he opened and spread flat u
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
>> go about it.
>
> So who actually said no?
>
> David
>
The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake nam
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
>> go about it.
>
> So who actually said no?
>
> David
>
The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake nam
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
> go about it.
So who actually said no?
David
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:35 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>
>> I do believe that it is odd that one of the most important
>> free-software projects in terms of widespread use, a free-software
>> project that has a technical quality com
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> I do believe that it is odd that one of the most important
> free-software projects in terms of widespread use, a free-software
> project that has a technical quality comparable and often superior to
> the closed-source counterparts, i
On 27 June 2010 20:45, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 27 June 2010 11:32, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
being rather old, so if anyone wi
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 27 June 2010 11:32, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>> We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
>>> being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to donate time
>>> and effort, l
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 27 June 2010 11:32, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>> We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
>>> being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to donate time
>>> and effort,
On 27 June 2010 11:32, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
>> being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to donate time
>> and effort, looking into upgrading that might be even preferrable.
>
> See http:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
> being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to donate time
> and effort, looking into upgrading that might be even preferrable.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011 for more
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Ben White wrote:
> Would a modestly modified copy of Bugzilla be workable for that
> something? I.E. Patchzilla?
We actually do have an issue with the Bugzilla instance on gcc.gnu.org
being rather old, so if anyone with Bugzilla foo wants to donate time
and effort, looking int
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 10 June 2010 22:05, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> I have a python script which crawls, caches, and parses the gcc-cvs
>> (and binutils-cvs) email archive pages. I wrote it to help another
>> script that correlates patch revisions in a b
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> What we would need is some way to detect that patches have been
> committed. Otherwise that list will grow uncontrollably very fast.
Imagine that :)
On 10 June 2010 22:05, Quentin Neill wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 7 June 2010 22:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> The patch tracker (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Patch_Tracking) is not
>>> currently operating.
>>>
>>> Would anybody like to volunteer to g
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 22:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> The patch tracker (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Patch_Tracking) is not
>> currently operating.
>>
>> Would anybody like to volunteer to get it working again?
>
> I'm not volunteering, but I
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Here are a few of the people with access to the copyright list: me, Ian,
>> Benjamin Koznik, David Edelsohn, Andreas Schwab, Joseph Myers, Ralf
>> Wildenhues. This is not a complete list, just people that I remember.
> I also have access and am happy to be a
> > Still, we'll see...
>
> Apparently not :(
Why not? At most, you just need not to make sure nothing ever send
mail to people who think that kind of thing is bozoid...
M
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Martin Guy wrote:
> On 6/8/10, NightStrike wrote:
>> Are you volunteering to write that small script?
>
> DUnno, are you volunteering to write that small script?
Sorry, no :(
> You're the only one here actually volunteering a forwardgoing
> commitment of their ti
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 05:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on his/her own
>>> local repository, and "publish" his/her repository. [...]
>>
>> git is an excellent tool to create and share patches. Maybe we
On 6/8/10, NightStrike wrote:
> Are you volunteering to write that small script?
DUnno, are you volunteering to write that small script?
You're the only one here actually volunteering a forwardgoing
commitment of their time here to improve GCC's development in this
way, it seems (and mostly just
On 08/06/2010 20:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Here are a few of the people with access to the copyright list: me, Ian,
> Benjamin Koznik, David Edelsohn, Andreas Schwab, Joseph Myers, Ralf
> Wildenhues. This is not a complete list, just people that I remember.
I also have access and am happy to
On 06/08/2010 09:21 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 11:18 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I don't understand. WAA rights definitely allow you to shepherd and commit
patches from people without svn access, even for patches you can't approve.
And basile (and other WAA c
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 11:18 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't understand. WAA rights definitely allow you to shepherd and commit
> >> patches from people without svn access, even for patches you can't approve.
> >
> > And basile (and other WAA contributors), this would a nice
> >
On 06/08/2010 08:40 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> There is no personal attack involved.
For sure. Sorry if my quick remark could be interpreted in another way.
Paolo.
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 09:21 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > Look, you don't want me to be here... fine. I get it. Enough is
> > enough already. Technical disagreements are one thing. Personal
> > attacks on me are just juvenile.
> >
> I don't see this as a personal attack.
>
> Like Paolo, I
> Are you volunteering to write that small script?
If nothing better comes out, why not, but resurrecting the Patch Tracker seems
to be a more appealing idea.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 06/08/2010 05:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on his/her own
>> local repository, and "publish" his/her repository. [...]
>
> git is an excellent tool to create and share patches. Maybe we should
> have an open gcc git mirror with gitweb and every c
On 8 June 2010 17:42, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> git is an excellent tool to create and share patches. Maybe we should
> have an open gcc git mirror with gitweb and every contributor can create
> his/her own branches and publish them.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitMirror
I don't see how such a thing solves
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Ben White wrote:
>> Would a modestly modified copy of Bugzilla be workable for that something?
>> I.E. Patchzilla?
>
> Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on his/her own
> local repository, and "p
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/08/10 09:01, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 06/08/2010 02:20 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
>>>
Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach.
>>>
>>> By the wa
On 06/08/10 09:01, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:20 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach.
By the way, I wonder how many contributors can even think taking
seriously a message
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:20 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
>> Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach.
> By the way, I wonder how many contributors can even think taking
> seriously a message coming from "NightStrike". Not me, for sure...
>
> P
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Reading gcc-cvs, or ChangeLogs, or other things like that is just way
>> too much time.
>
> What about writing a small script that parses the main ChangeLogs? They are
> supposed to be uniformly formatted. And ping messages shouldn't contai
On 7 June 2010 22:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> The patch tracker (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Patch_Tracking) is not
> currently operating.
>
> Would anybody like to volunteer to get it working again?
I'm not volunteering, but I might look into it one day. I already
have too little spare time
On 8 June 2010 11:17, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 8 June 2010 10:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 06/08/2010 06:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So perhaps the thing to do is somehow separate patches from regular
contri
On 8 June 2010 10:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 06:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> So perhaps the thing to do is somehow separate patches from regular
>>> contributors and irregular contributors. A relatively easy way
On 8 June 2010 07:43, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Ben White wrote:
>> Would a modestly modified copy of Bugzilla be workable for that something?
>> I.E. Patchzilla?
>
> Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on his/her own
> local repository, and "publish" his
On 06/08/2010 06:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So perhaps the thing to do is somehow separate patches from regular
contributors and irregular contributors. A relatively easy way to do
this would be for a regular contributor to include a ke
> Reading gcc-cvs, or ChangeLogs, or other things like that is just way
> too much time.
What about writing a small script that parses the main ChangeLogs? They are
supposed to be uniformly formatted. And ping messages shouldn't contain all
the junk of previous messages, just the ChangeLog (an
On 8 June 2010 05:42, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/07/10 14:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> > The gcc project currently has a problem: when people who are not
>> > regular gcc developers send in a patch, those patches often get
>> > droppe
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Ben White wrote:
> Would a modestly modified copy of Bugzilla be workable for that something?
> I.E. Patchzilla?
Think about mercurial or git. Every one can commit on his/her own
local repository, and "publish" his/her repository. Every one can
pull other people'
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/07/10 14:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > The gcc project currently has a problem: when people who are not
> > regular gcc developers send in a patch, those patches often get
> > dropped. They get dropped because they do not get reviewed, a
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paolo Carlini writes:
This makes sense. Thinking out loud myself, even for irregular
contributors, the idea of a ping-man doesn't really sound right, it's a
boring and error-prone task. Can anybody think of a way to automate the
job? For patches corresponding to Bug
On 06/08/2010 02:20 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach.
By the way, I wonder how many contributors can even think taking
seriously a message coming from "NightStrike". Not me, for sure...
Paolo.
On 7 June 2010 23:23, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Paolo Carlini writes:
>
>> This makes sense. Thinking out loud myself, even for irregular
>> contributors, the idea of a ping-man doesn't really sound right, it's a
>> boring and error-prone task. Can anybody think of a way to automate the
>> job? F
On 8 June 2010 00:21, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 06/07/2010 11:40 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> I think a big way of solving this is through a non technical solution
>> of having a person who just go through patches and mentors the "non
>> regular" developers.
>>
> The only point I want to stress aga
On 06/07/2010 11:40 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I think a big way of solving this is through a non technical solution
> of having a person who just go through patches and mentors the "non
> regular" developers.
>
The only point I want to stress again, or maybe clarify, is that if a
*person* is go
Paolo Carlini writes:
> On 06/07/2010 11:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Can you expand? What kinds of process changes would be reasonable to
>> make?
>>
> Following the terminology "irregular contributor", per Jeff message, I
> would not consider unreasonable for irregular contributions to
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 06/07/2010 11:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Can you expand? What kinds of process changes would be reasonable to
>> make?
>>
> Following the terminology "irregular contributor", per Jeff message, I
> would not consider unreasonable for
Paolo Carlini writes:
> This makes sense. Thinking out loud myself, even for irregular
> contributors, the idea of a ping-man doesn't really sound right, it's a
> boring and error-prone task. Can anybody think of a way to automate the
> job? For patches corresponding to Bugzilla entries we alread
On 06/07/2010 11:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Can you expand? What kinds of process changes would be reasonable to
> make?
>
Following the terminology "irregular contributor", per Jeff message, I
would not consider unreasonable for irregular contributions to use more
extensively and consiste
Paolo Carlini writes:
> On 06/07/2010 10:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> The question we face now is: are we willing to change our process in
>> order to improve it?
> Maybe. Currently, I have zero problems with it.
I understand that you have no problems with the current process. As I
said in
On 06/07/2010 11:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/07/10 14:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> The gcc project currently has a problem: when people who are not
>> regular gcc developers send in a patch, those patches often get
>> dropped. They get dropped because they do not get reviewed, and they
>> get
On 06/07/10 14:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The gcc project currently has a problem: when people who are not
regular gcc developers send in a patch, those patches often get
dropped. They get dropped because they do not get reviewed, and they
get dropped because after review they do not get commit
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, NightStrike wrote:
> I suggested that a long time ago on irc, but was brutally shot down
> for it. Apparently, most people hate bugzilla :( To be clear, what I
> suggested was that every patch should have a PR. There is way too
> much duplication of purpose between bugzilla,
On 06/07/2010 10:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The question we face now is: are we willing to change our process in
> order to improve it?
Maybe. Currently, I have zero problems with it.
> And, if we are willing, is this specific change
> a reasonable one to make?
>
No.
Paolo.
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
