On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800
Corey Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(apologies for the messed up time in my last message)
On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know
how to do proper testing. We've had
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
Ben Skeggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out
that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to
your local
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:19:17 +0100
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 18 November 2005 18:09, Homer Parker wrote:
Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a
subdomain for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum
help, so needs to be generic.
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
Ben Skeggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out
that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Corey Shields schrieb:
|| Ahh, ok thanks for clearing that up.
||
|| Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority
|| of the council, write and propose a glep the day before
|| a meeting and then push it through. wow. sounds
||
On Friday 18 November 2005 18:09, Homer Parker wrote:
Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain
for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs
to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out:
@staff.g.o
@assist.g.o
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:08:14 + George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Adding on to that, the mud slinging and conspiracy theories in this
| thread benefit no-one, especially those looking at Gentoo from the
| outside in. I see more Who Killed JR? than this is good/bad
| because...
Pfff,
19.11.2005, 5:30:35, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs.
Sorry, but that's a big no. People that add/remove keywords without
making note in the Changelog deserve a massive kick
Corey Shields wrote:
Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
clear answer...
Jakub++ Nobody in infra is on
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:31:23 +0100 Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| You can't just ignore the discussion and the iterim decisions and
| complain afterwards when the decision is taken.
What discussion? As both myself and Grant pointed out on this list
before the meeting, there wasn't any.
19.11.2005, 10:31:23, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Corey Shields wrote:
Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
clear
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
What discussion? As both myself and Grant pointed out on this list
before the meeting, there wasn't any. Yet the council decided to go
ahead and approve the thing anyway...
Discussion and intermediary decision.
The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:00:31 +0100 Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one month ago)
| was that the GLEP would be approved, pending a list of changes. During
| last month, nobody raised his voice to say this list of changes was
|
Jakub Moc wrote:
Erm, what exactly could have been discussed, the revised GLEP being submitted
about a day before the council meeting? Are you expecting people to hang on
email 24/7?
No, but I surely expect people interested in the discussion to read the
last month council meeting decisions.
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:09:55 +0100 Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| 75% of his email is about things that were in the original GLEP. Why
| didn't he raise his voice at that time ?
Oh, lots of people objected to the original GLEP. There was a rather
long thread about it on -dev. They went
On Saturday 19 November 2005 20:09, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Jakub Moc wrote:
Now, we might we perhaps move the focus to more important issues jstubbs
mentioned in his last email, expecting that any implementation of the now
approved GLEP wrt the email addresses won't be pushed in a similar
Jakub Moc wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 02:11:19AM CST]
Grrrmhhh, was it so much unclear? I mean: stable on x86 definitely
belongs to changelogs, while stable on x86, thanks Jim for opening a
keywording bug, Jack and Jim for testing and Joe for reminding me five
times to mark it finally stable when
Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it
through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics.
That's quite an indictment. You've
On Saturday 19 November 2005 12:00, Thierry Carrez wrote:
The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one month ago)
was that the GLEP would be approved, pending a list of changes. During
last month, nobody raised his voice to say this list of changes was
fundamentally flawed. Which
Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht
@docs.g.o for document persons
@infra.g.o for infrastucture
etc...
@staff.g.o for non-specific staff
@g.o for
On Saturday 19 November 2005 00:18, Scott Stoddard wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Being relatively new to the team, I speak with a bit of naivet'e about
the whole thing, but doesn't that seem to make the most sense?
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 21:17 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
As an AT... albiet a very busy/cannot help as much as I'd like one...
The only useful thing I see in here is ro-cvs access. This
facilitates testing by allowing the tester to get the ebuilds as they
are committed, instead of syncing and
On Saturday 19 November 2005 17:16, Lares Moreau wrote:
Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht
@docs.g.o for document persons
@infra.g.o for infrastucture
etc...
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:16:06AM -0700, Lares Moreau wrote:
Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht
@docs.g.o for document persons
@infra.g.o for infrastucture
etc...
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 10:38 -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:16:06AM -0700, Lares Moreau wrote:
Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht
@docs.g.o for document persons
@infra.g.o
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it
through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics.
That's quite
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Cut the kabbale crap : we felt bad about delaying the GLEP vote for one
more month, and we also felt bad about pushing the decision while some
people already complained that revised version wasn't published soon
enough. The meetings logs are quite clear on this. So we
Lance Albertson wrote:
Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on
their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with
ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You
shouldn't feel bad for them because you would require them
On Saturday 19 November 2005 09:20 am, Corey Shields wrote:
couple of council members I have talked to didn't have time to catch up on
I take this part back, turns out they aren't council members and I thought
they were.. my bad.
--
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo
Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it
through. wow. sounds
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP
would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that
even the council would be curious about that question as well.
We have an infra team member in the council. And since
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit
but more confusion).
The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a
specific
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Corey Shields schrieb:
| On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
|
|No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and taken
|to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the
|council asked
Danny van Dyk wrote:
Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said:
a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted
in in the first meeting.
Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative
nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain
Thanks hparker for letting me know about this part of the thread and a
call for opinions from ATs.
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a
specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve
the quality of the
On 19/11/05, Sven Vermeulen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
Anything that makes us do our job better and makes our lives easier is
a good thing. Thats
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for
being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their
work.
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
I'm a AT for x86, and I am still reading the thread.
That being said, Do I feel it is Necessary for me to get a @g.o
account? Plain and
On 19/11/05, George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/05, Sven Vermeulen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
Anything that makes us do our job
On Saturday 19 November 2005 01:05 pm, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Corey Shields schrieb:
| Ahh, ok thanks for clearing that up.
|
| Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
| council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then
| push it
| through.
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit
but more confusion).
The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit
but more confusion).
One (important) part
On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:18 pm, Patrick McLean wrote:
This thread has had a disturbing amount of bickering, and there appears
to be a bit of a sentiment that arch testers don't contribute anything
more than a normal user. I have filed and commented on more bugs in the
week since I
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
I'm not sure that this topic is worthy of a flame-fest, but anyway..
still reading. :)
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:27:52PM -0700, Tres Melton wrote:
staff.gentoo.org forum staff
amd64-at.gentoo.org Arch testers for the amd64 platform
contributer.gentoo.orgPeople that donate $$$ to Gentoo
retired.gentoo.orgA thanks for helping
Brian Harring wrote:
Frankly I think you're exagerating here.
You're seriously telling me it's going to cause you massive
adminstration nightmares adding an attribute to ldap to specify the
user comes in from a subdomain? Where's the nightmare in admining it?
It _should_ just be a
On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:19 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative
nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other
things.
Frankly I think you're exagerating here.
What about the end-user headache of having to
On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:40 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
Easier, and saner to just plain drop the subdomain notion. Avoids the
whole gentoo personel first class/second class issue first of all,
second avoids infra aliasing annoyances.
I agree with this.
--
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:46:51PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
It's a crazy notion, but y'all could've commented in the *TWO* months
that this glep has been percolating, yo, what do you want from an
infra standpoint?.
Or implemented anoncvs in the meantime,
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 15:27 -0700, Tres Melton wrote:
I think that there should be other sub-domains too but the current
people should be left alone under a grandfather clause. That would also
help to see what people are working on what.
staff.gentoo.org forum staff
Brian Harring wrote:
What was posted two months ago is not the same as was posted a day
before the vote. I didn't see a problem with the original glep from an
infra POV, thus why I didn't say much about it.
Email wise, you're right- the basic issue of anoncvs/cvs ro access for
ATs however
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:06:41PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote:
On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:19 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative
nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other
things.
Frankly I think
On Saturday 19 November 2005 04:09 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
Subdomain complaints, fine, I'm not even going to argue that one at
this point, the actual cvs enabling, you should've known it was
coming- being surprised by it sucks, but so does trying to revert it
because it surprised you.
there
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:05:18PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
And yes, we probably could/should have said something
about lark earlier, but didn't catch that before hand.
Shit happens (lark). The appearance/concerns of cvs (specifically the
this won't fly if it's single key) is what I'm
Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain
for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs
to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out:
@staff.g.o
@assist.g.o
Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
--
Homer Parker
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
@staff.g.o
Staff sounds pretty good to me.
./Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpMNlWblXTny.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Actually staff gives the ideal ambiguity that is needed for these
placements. The need to seperate developers from staff who have
seperate jobs to do is an acute one.
At the moment the @gentoo.org address is seen as a developer one but as
you mentioned the word staff is already used to describe
Hi.
On 11/18/05, Homer Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o?
Max
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
@staff.g.o
Staff sounds pretty good to me.
./Brix
This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it going
to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it
going
to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For
instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev.
That's what the GLEP
Homer Parker wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it
going
to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For
instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev.
That's
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra
| is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly
| an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no
| confusion. If
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra
| is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly
| an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:18:12 -0500 Scott Stoddard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Being relatively new to the team, I speak with a bit of naivet'e
| about the whole thing, but doesn't that seem to make the most sense?
|
| @dev.gentoo.org for devs
| @herd.gentoo.org for herd ATs
| @staff.gentoo.org for
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion.
19.11.2005, 0:29:24, Kurt Lieber wrote:
What purpose does this serve? This would create all sorts of confusion.
Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption that
their email address is irc nick@gentoo.org. This would confuse things
horribly imo. What about
Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants to
know someone's role within the project, they can
Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants to
know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
site.
--kurt
+1
Curtis Napier wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 04:44:53PM CST]
The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using
it...
I agree with this. Those of us who don't have commit rights to the tree
should have an @staff.g.o, people like me for instance. I happen to be
part of two
Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it
doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants
to
know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the
web
site.
19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role
that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose something
like aide, helper, assistant, or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have
preferred volunteer if
19.11.2005, 1:07:40, Homer Parker wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it
doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants
to
know someone's role within the project, they can
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 06:07:40PM -0600 or thereabouts, Homer Parker wrote:
I'm guessing you didn't read the logs from the council meeting where it
got stipulated that this be done. [1] I also apologize (again) for it
hitting the list the day before it was to be voted on, and stated that
Jakub Moc wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:07:48PM CST]
19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect
the role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be
to choose something like aide, helper, assistant, or
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:22:28PM CST]
tester@yellowstar.gentoo.org
You can now declare godwin's law. tyvm hand
Huh?
--kurt (who finds the very idea of second-class devs revolting and
embarassing)
I happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just not clear to me that
it
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]
Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we
don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra
folks to manage. I can only
Jakub Moc wrote:
19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role
that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose something
like aide, helper, assistant, or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Jakub Moc wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:07:48PM CST]
19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect
the role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be
to choose something like aide,
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]
Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we
don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra
folks
The only reason any of this is coming up is because some wanted to keep
the .g.org addresses to the developer staff. If the CVS access is read
only and they are working for gentoo what difference would it make?
This would sort out the AT and forums question in one swoop.
George
On 11/19/05, Grant
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]
Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we
don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra
folks to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:13:51 -0400 Luis F. Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Let's write a GLEP to clarify that @g.o addresses is for people who
| cooperates (in a direct way) with Gentoo.
Don't forget the ... and make a reasonable commitment for a
substantial
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:03:26 -0500 Scott Stoddard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I wholeheartedly disagree. The fact that I am an AT with aspirations
| towards becoming a full dev does not in any way imply that all ATs
| fill the same mindset. I see the AT position as a wonderful
| opportunity to
19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping Gentoo
feel like they're part of the family. It was decided that a straight
@gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most people associate
those addresses with
As an AT... albiet a very busy/cannot help as much as I'd like one...
The only useful thing I see in here is ro-cvs access. This
facilitates testing by allowing the tester to get the ebuilds as they
are committed, instead of syncing and hoping not to get banned from
rsync servers.
I could care
19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in ChangeLogs.
How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed something?
--
jakub
pgpd4At0gxKS4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 18 November 2005 06:15 pm, Jakub Moc wrote:
19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping
Gentoo feel like they're part of the family. It was decided that a
So we give them an email account?? Is there any other
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| ChangeLogs.
|
| How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed
| something?
Stable on
19.11.2005, 3:49:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| ChangeLogs.
|
| How exactly does testing stuff fit into
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| ChangeLogs.
|
| How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed
|
(apologies for the messed up time in my last message)
On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know how to
do proper testing. We've had please keyword, works for me bugs for
things that will always segfault on
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:59:15 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Thanks, no... Reminds ne of the debates on forums.g.o, why emerge
| --changelog feature is useless and why people file pointless bugs:
| too much irrelevant stuff.
Er, keywording is entirely relevant. *You* might not use it,
On Friday 18 November 2005 07:01 pm, George Prowse wrote:
As these would be @gentoo.org http://gentoo.org people they would be
easier for devrel to tackle. Making them closer under the gentoo wing just
makes them easier to dicipline.
No, you misunderstood... In the theoretical site I was
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800 Corey Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I think having users systems would be profiled may help ease the
| ricer issue. fex, user A has 3 systems, and marks package B as !WFM
| on one. devs can cross link that negative mark to the system profile
| and note that
On Friday 18 November 2005 07:23 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
See, it's a question of quality rather than numbers. One it works
report from someone who knows what they're doing is worth far more than
a thousand it works reports from random users. Expecting a large
number of average Joe types to
On Friday 18 November 2005 07:40 pm, George Prowse wrote:
Yeah, I think a sub-domain may not be a good solution but unfortunately it
is the best at present. The site is a good idea but nothing stops it from
I disagree that it is the best idea.. Better on my list is to just not hand
out email
Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help
long-term that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email
addresses are a problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been
suggested. The staff subdomain would contain almost all relevant other
domains. If in the unlikely event
On Friday 18 November 2005 08:02 pm, George Prowse wrote:
Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help long-term
that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email addresses are a
problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been suggested. The staff
subdomain would
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
