On Sunday 04 of April 2010 17:33:17 Tiziano Müller wrote:
Besides I
can already imagine PMS-related discussion regarding make the PMs check
for rdeps per default before unmerging things - thx but no thx.
This is not related to PMS. Paludis for example does it already with the
current
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:16:42AM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
Unconditionally removing libraries (instead of preserving them) and making
their reverse runtime dependencies reinstalled is unacceptable because
emerge process involving multiple packages is not atomic. Simple as that.
Is
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 03:33:52 +0200
Tobias Heinlein keytoas...@gentoo.org wrote:
3) Questions that aren't that important at all and would just be nice
to know.
[snip]
Examples for these:
5. What is wrong with using $(somecommand) or `somecommand` or $ARCH
inside SRC_URI, DEPEND, etc?
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:48:08AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 03:33:52 +0200
Tobias Heinlein keytoas...@gentoo.org wrote:
3) Questions that aren't that important at all and would just be nice
to know.
[snip]
Examples for these:
5. What is wrong with using
On 04/05/2010 05:36 AM, Alistair Bush wrote:
On 4/3/10 3:40 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
Are there any other ideas on how to improve our recruitment process?
The idea appeared before, but I think it's worth noting.
Either merge the ebuild and end quizzes, or make the split actually
meaningful.
mån 2010-04-05 klockan 03:54 +0300 skrev Mart Raudsepp:
The problem is really the RESOLVED connotation and the hiding that goes
along with that on searches, etc.
The LATER status itself can be useful when used properly (more as
ASSIGNED LATER). In the lack of that some bigger teams might
Am Sonntag, den 04.04.2010, 23:44 -0700 schrieb Brian Harring:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:16:42AM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
Unconditionally removing libraries (instead of preserving them) and making
their reverse runtime dependencies reinstalled is unacceptable because
emerge process
On 04/05/2010 03:48 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 03:33:52 +0200
Tobias Heinleinkeytoas...@gentoo.org wrote:
3) Questions that aren't that important at all and would just be nice
to know.
[snip]
Examples for these:
5. What is wrong with using $(somecommand) or `somecommand`
Am Montag, den 05.04.2010, 08:16 +0200 schrieb Maciej Mrozowski:
On Sunday 04 of April 2010 17:33:17 Tiziano Müller wrote:
Besides I
can already imagine PMS-related discussion regarding make the PMs check
for rdeps per default before unmerging things - thx but no thx.
This is not
On 04/04/2010 02:09 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
All ideas regarding improving recruitment are welcome, thanks. However
if, during your review, you were not given the impression that your
maturity and other social skills were being assessed then you were
being blissfully naive. :o)
That
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:50:49AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
Just replying randomly.
On 05.04.2010 04:33, Tobias Heinlein wrote:
I think this is a good starting point to get rid of the some important
questions are too hard to answer dilemma that can be implemented
relatively fast. On top
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 04:07:01PM +, Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:50:49AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
Just replying randomly.
On 05.04.2010 04:33, Tobias Heinlein wrote:
I think this is a good starting point to get rid of the some important
questions are too hard
On 05/04/2010 17:07, Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:50:49AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
Just replying randomly.
On 05.04.2010 04:33, Tobias Heinlein wrote:
I think this is a good starting point to get rid of the some important
questions are too hard to answer dilemma that can be
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
What I was getting at is trying to identify what aspects of the whole
recruitment process added the most value and which added the least, and
adjusting accordingly. I think that assessing attitude and maturity, and
On 04/05/2010 09:26 PM, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote:
The first option could be somewhat simple, we already have overlays
so those could simply be used. The second option (which would be the
best IMO) is a fair bit harder. The first thing that needs to be done
is find out why people don't
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open.
How about this one: preventing users from filing dupes.
If we
start doing that, we'll end up with tons of extra bugs on our hands.
What's the big deal? You know you'll be
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 05:50:49PM +0100, George Prowse wrote:
That assumes the system is working perfectly and the whole fact that
we are having this discussion would go against that.
From what i've read in the community, lots of people would have no
problems helping out maintaining
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
I disagree. Resolved LATER is useful to some maintainers that want to
fix that bug, but don't have time or don't find the issue to be a
priority at the moment. By marking it LATER they're acknowledging the
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 03:27:34PM +0200, Tiziano MMMller wrote:
Via that, the resolver can see that a rebuild is necessary and plan a
rebuild of all consumers (whether NEEDED based or revdep). Note
preserve-lib would be rather useful here- specifically holding onto
the intermediate
After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
feedback on this new project is welcome.
We'd also like to invite any users and developers,
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jon Portnoy av...@eris.oppresses.us wrote:
Which is all well and good -- the you wrote some ebuilds so here's
your commit privs and @gentoo.org approach to recruitment worked great
when Gentoo had a few dozen developers.
Today QA is a bit more important, and
On 05/04/10 11:07, Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:50:49AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
Just replying randomly.
On 05.04.2010 04:33, Tobias Heinlein wrote:
I think this is a good starting point to get rid of the some important
questions are too hard to answer dilemma that
On 05/04/10 13:12, Ben de Groot wrote:
After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
feedback on this new project is welcome.
We'd
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Nathan Zachary
nathanzach...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...] but it
would be much more enlightening to me to work on creating ebuilds while
working one-on-one with a mentor.
The whole purpose of the training period between the ebuild quiz and
the end quiz (see [1]) is
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:12:49 +0200, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org
wrote:
After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
feedback on
On Monday 05 April 2010 21:12:49 Ben de Groot wrote:
After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
feedback on this new project is
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:15:21PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Monday 05 April 2010 21:12:49 Ben de Groot wrote:
After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
users and developers, and put up a
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 23:37:31 +0200
From: zeera...@gmail.com
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:15:21PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Monday 05 April 2010 21:12:49 Ben de Groot wrote:
After the mostly
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Denis Dupeyron calc...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open.
How about this one: preventing users from filing dupes.
We already advise our users to check RESO
# Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org (05 Apr 2010)
# Needs dev-python/numeric which is going away.
# No release since 2006
# Masked for removal on 20100505
games-strategy/castle-combat
One of the few remaining problems to be solved for the migration to
git for our gentoo-x86/ and gentoo/ trees (besides other
projects/overlays) is the problem of how to handle ChangeLogs.
Gist:
* It makes zero sense to manually manage ChangeLogs in git[1]
- Irritating conflicts while
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05-04-2010 18:26, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 04:07:01PM +, Jon Portnoy wrote:
There should be a process of weeding out developers that bitch and/or whine,
but if most of the teams are understaffed then there has to
On 04/05/10 13:12, Ben de Groot wrote:
After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
feedback on this new project is welcome.
We'd also
On 2010-04-06 04:12, Ben de Groot wrote:
After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
feedback on this new project is welcome.
This
Le 03/04/2010 11:50, Petteri Räty a écrit :
I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it just
means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a
different resolution should be used. So what do you think about
disabling later? I would like to avoid things
35 matches
Mail list logo
