On 01-05-2011 19:43:48 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
My personal feeling is that we should keep the changelogs as-is, and
include removals, until we're on git. Then we should re-evaluate.
git doesn't magically solve all the problems!
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
2011-05-02 02:16:49 Markos Chandras napisał(a):
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
still a lot of signing with a single key, but as
Fabian Groffen posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 12:00:17 +0200 as excerpted:
Attachment not shown: MIME type chemical/x-genbank; filename
ChangeLog.gen
Had to laugh at that one. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use
On 01-05-2011 14:55:24 +, Duncan wrote:
Fabian Groffen posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 12:00:17 +0200 as excerpted:
Attachment not shown: MIME type chemical/x-genbank; filename
ChangeLog.gen
Had to laugh at that one. =:^)
Apologies, the .gen extension apparently made the MIME match to
Markos Chandras posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 22:08:31 +0100 as excerpted:
Having the servers do that, will also allow us to provide cut down
Changelogs ( lets say keep that last 10 entries ) so we can provide a
more minimal portage tree, size wise.
What about cutting it to the largest whole
Markos Chandras posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 23:49:06 +0100 as excerpted:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:33:25PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the Changelog
and on the commit log,
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards
of a loss of integrity there aren't as high as with most of the tree
content. It'd
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
Well, more like get any one of the keys and you get the tree, since
portage only validates that a trusted
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 07:43:48PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
My personal feeling is that we should
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards
of a loss of integrity
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 19:43:48 -0400 as excerpted:
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com
wrote:
Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
Well, more like get any one of the
Il giorno sab, 30/04/2011 alle 11.07 +0200, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto:
I won't clutter ChangeLogs with useless entries for whitespace changes
or spelling fixes in comments, for example. They already account for a
considerable (too large?) percentage of the portage tree [1], and we
shouldn't
On 14:28 Sat 30 Apr , Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
If you read the last paragraph in my suggestion was to cycle the logs...
Maybe this would be better together with a mechanism (automatic?) to keep the
complete ChangeLogs (as they are now) somewhere (but not in the main
tree). Sometimes, full
On 4/30/11 3:05 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
On 14:28 Sat 30 Apr , Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
If you read the last paragraph in my suggestion was to cycle the logs...
Maybe this would be better together with a mechanism (automatic?) to keep the
complete ChangeLogs (as they are now)
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm fine with shipping a trimmed down versions to users, but I think the
full version must be easy to access.
If the changelogs were accessible via a predicable URL then a simple
command-line tool or portage option
15 matches
Mail list logo
