Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-30 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:30:55AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild Log: qa I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you applied,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-29 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 20:54 Thu 28 Oct , Samuli Suominen wrote: On 10/28/2010 07:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of

[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-28 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild Log: qa I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. I just see lots of unnecessary

[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-28 Thread Duncan
Fabian Groffen posted on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:30:55 +0200 as excerpted: On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild Log: qa I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-28 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild Log: qa I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you applied, even though for you it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-28 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 28-10-2010 17:20:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to be justified by QA. removal

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-28 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 10/28/2010 07:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 28-10-2010 17:20:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-28 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild Log: qa I think it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

2010-10-28 Thread Mark Loeser
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org said: On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: