* Mike Gilbert schrieb am 30.01.14 um 23:02 Uhr:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 30-01-2014 a las 13:47 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer escribió:
* Pacho Ramos schrieb am 29.01.14 um 07:58 Uhr:
Currently, there is no really working version of it in the
* Tom Wijsman schrieb am 31.01.14 um 00:52 Uhr:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:47:27 +0100
Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org wrote:
* Pacho Ramos schrieb am 29.01.14 um 07:58 Uhr:
Currently, there is no really working version of it in the tree:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=494624
But due
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
sounds to me like QA is giving itself carte blanche to make any fix
they want as per we think a developer's actions are causing problems
hmm?
So in short, while one could read that passage as you did, I don't think
that
Alec Warner wrote:
hmm?
To be fair, I had a long discussion with this regarding when QA has the
authority to temporarily ban a developer.
Cool.
In the case where policy is missing, QA does not have a clear case
of authority there. It becomes a more murky area. I've tried to
very much
On 01/30/2014 11:02 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 30-01-2014 a las 13:47 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer escribió:
* Pacho Ramos schrieb am 29.01.14 um 07:58 Uhr:
Currently, there is no really working version of it in the tree:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/31/2014 09:07 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
hmm?
To be fair, I had a long discussion with this regarding when QA
has the authority to temporarily ban a developer.
Cool.
In the case where policy is missing, QA does not
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:19 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Googleearth is 90% of the time broken. I don't see how you can do
automated version bumps there. And we should not bump if the new version
is broken.
If that is the case, it sounds like it isn't worth keeping it in the
