On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:16:55 -0500
Austin English wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0500
> > Austin English wrote:
> >
> >> From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 6:09:38 AM JST, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
The same applies for the tree-cleaners team. While their job is
very important, sometimes they are too hasty, like in commit
On 07/01/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0500
> Austin English wrote:
>
>> From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Austin English
>> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:58:07 -0500
>>
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> The same applies for the tree-cleaners team. While their job is
> very important, sometimes they are too hasty, like in commit
> 34181a1045d13142d959b9c894a46ddcebf3c512. If package builds and
> works fine, have no
Our bug queue has 89 bugs!
If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs.
To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5
Thanks!
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:51:51 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> I'm going to ask the security team to please stop running around
> p.masking packages without acknowledgement from the maintainers. I'm
> referring in particular to commit
> 135b94c85950254f559f290f4865bce8b349a917 regarding monkeyd.
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:53:02 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:47:48 +0200 Patrice Clement wrote:
> > # Patrice Clement (5 Jun 2016)
> > # Unmaintained ebuilds. Upstream is either dead or AWOL. Also, most of these
> > # ebuilds are still sitting in ~arch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/07/16 20:00, Zac Medico wrote:
> I wasn't aware that there was an argument about that.
I didn't argue it very heavily, but I do find it useful.
> I'll be happy to send pushed emails.
Thanks!
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
On 07/04/2016 05:17 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> Never mind. I see that it's already pushed. I guess this is where I
> continue to argue my case for "Pushed as [commit hash]" emails.
I wasn't aware that there was an argument about that. I'll be happy to
send pushed emails.
--
Thanks,
Zac
On 07/04/2016 05:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> Looks OK. But you've found a few bugs already. Maybe you'll find more.
> I'd appreciate if you hold off until the end of the week before
> pushing it confidently.
I'm extremely confident in v2 of the patch. I don't expect that we'll
find any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Never mind. I see that it's already pushed. I guess this is where I
continue to argue my case for "Pushed as [commit hash]" emails.
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
On 07/04/2016 10:15 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 07/04/2016 12:57 AM, Nicolas Bock wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to package a code that depends on JavaScript packages. The
>> suggested installation procedure from upstream involves running `npm
>> install ...`. How do we (or do we?) deal with
On 07/04/2016 12:57 AM, Nicolas Bock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to package a code that depends on JavaScript packages. The
> suggested installation procedure from upstream involves running `npm
> install ...`. How do we (or do we?) deal with JavaScript packages?
>
> Best,
>
> Nick
>
The
Hi,
I would like to package a code that depends on JavaScript packages. The
suggested installation procedure from upstream involves running `npm
install ...`. How do we (or do we?) deal with JavaScript packages?
Best,
Nick
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
14 matches
Mail list logo