On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 03:15 +, Duncan wrote:
> Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:11:48 +0100 as excerpted:
>
> [Seven J. Long wrote...]
>
> >> There's plenty of ways to stay on the bleeding-edge; throwing out the
> >> baby with the bathwater will only tip you over it, and bork the dis
Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:11:48 +0100 as excerpted:
[Seven J. Long wrote...]
>> There's plenty of ways to stay on the bleeding-edge; throwing out the
>> baby with the bathwater will only tip you over it, and bork the distro
>> for the rest of us, and everyone down the line.
>
> W
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:52:59 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 28/01/2014 14:37, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > I concur that "QA should be focusing on making stable, actually
> > stable, not more bleeding edge." That's not a "performance" issue
> > as you put it, except in management nuspeek. It's the
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:37:40 +
"Steven J. Long" wrote:
> Please set your client not to embed people's email addresses in your
> responses: it's spambait in web archives. Thanks.
It's as much a spambait as it is listed in the From: header on the web
archives; in other words, it are the web ar
On 28/01/2014 14:37, Steven J. Long wrote:
> I concur that "QA should be focusing on making stable, actually stable,
> not more bleeding edge." That's not a "performance" issue as you put it,
> except in management nuspeek. It's the whole bloody point of the distro,
> in overarching terms: to test
Please set your client not to embed people's email addresses in your
responses: it's spambait in web archives. Thanks.
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> "Steven J. Long" wrote:
> > Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > "Steven J. Long" wrote:
> > > > What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic.
> > >
> > > It mov
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 09:52 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> > It's not necessarily the STABLEREQs stopping, some of the issues are (at
> > least on some arches!) that some of the unstable software doesn't quite
> > work properly anymore, an
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> It's not necessarily the STABLEREQs stopping, some of the issues are (at
> least on some arches!) that some of the unstable software doesn't quite
> work properly anymore, and we are failing at communicating. And in
> those cases, we on
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 16:35 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> >
> > I don't think that's "completely optional" though, it sounds like a
> > one-way function. If have ever stabilized a package once then must
> > ensure a stable package forever.
> >
>
Duncan posted on Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:56:24 + as excerpted:
> Tho AFAIK both Ubuntu and Fedora have an arm variants...
Ugh! Incomplete editing! Me ungrammatical caveman!
s/have an arm variants/have arm variants/
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program ha
Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:59:19 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I've often wondered just how much faster gentoo could move, and how
>> much better we could keep up with upstream, if we weren't so focused on
>> 30+day
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> I don't think that's "completely optional" though, it sounds like a
> one-way function. If have ever stabilized a package once then must
> ensure a stable package forever.
>
> I think arbitrarily removing stable versions should also be an opt
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Why not make stable completely optional for arch teams?
>
> Stable already is completely optional for the arch teams, and that is
> why we have concerns over stable requests taking forever on minor
> archs in the first place. If the package wasn't marked as stable in
> the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It seems like the simplest solution in these cases is to just have
>> them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and let users
>> deal with more breakage outside of that set
>
> Why not make stable completely op
Rich Freeman wrote:
> It seems like the simplest solution in these cases is to just have
> them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and let users
> deal with more breakage outside of that set
Why not make stable completely optional for arch teams?
//Peter
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> I've often wondered just how much faster gentoo could move, and how much
> better we could keep up with upstream, if we weren't so focused on 30+day
> outdated stab?l3 bumping all the time. All that effort... from my
> viewpo
Duncan wrote:
> My point being... yes indeed, there's a LOT of folks for whom gentoo
> without a stable tree would be a gentoo freed of a to-them useless
> weight, allowing gentoo to move even faster, and be even better in areas
> that are already its strength, heavily automated leading edge rel
Tom Wijsman posted on Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:26:41 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:46:06 + "Steven J. Long"
> wrote:
>
>> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> > "Steven J. Long" wrote:
>> > > What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic.
>> >
>> > It moves us closer to upstream releases,
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:29:02 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:29 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:10:30 -0600
> > Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> >
> > > The problem isn't finding someone that has everything - we have
> > > people that test on ARMv5, so
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:29 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:10:30 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> > The problem isn't finding someone that has everything - we have people
> > that test on ARMv5, some that test on ARMv6, we have some that test on
> > ARMv7 - until ALL of t
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:10:30 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> The problem isn't finding someone that has everything - we have people
> that test on ARMv5, some that test on ARMv6, we have some that test on
> ARMv7 - until ALL of them are tested, it doesn't get stabled on ARM.
> So again, it just
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:46:06 +
"Steven J. Long" wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > "Steven J. Long" wrote:
> > > What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic.
> >
> > It moves us closer to upstream releases, a little more bleeding
> > edge; a lot of users and developers run that already
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 18:26 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:52:47 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> > The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all.
>
> It is an idea to solve your actual problem, which isn't workload.
> > You can easily find 7 peop
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:52:47 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all.
It is an idea to solve your actual problem, which isn't workload.
> You can easily find 7 people who have an armv7, and even v6, since the
> rpi is quite popular
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> "Steven J. Long" wrote:
> > What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic.
>
> It moves us closer to upstream releases, a little more bleeding edge; a
> lot of users and developers run that already, it is found to be useful.
What? More vague. As are many of your philos
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 04:04 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:04:19 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> > Your "suggestion" was expanding the "arm" keyword to "armv4-linux",
> > "armv5-linux", "armv6-linux", "armv6-hardfloat-linux",
> > "armv7-softfp-linux", "armv7-hardfloat-li
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:04:19 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Your "suggestion" was expanding the "arm" keyword to "armv4-linux",
> "armv5-linux", "armv6-linux", "armv6-hardfloat-linux",
> "armv7-softfp-linux", "armv7-hardfloat-linux",
> "armv7-hardfloat-uclibc-linux" - that is nowhere near a go
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 00:50 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:42:28 +0100
> Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> > Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > you shoot down solutions
> >
> > Maybe it wasn't a very good solution that deserved to be shot down.
>
> Maybe it was; what is needed here, is the feedb
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:42:28 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > you shoot down solutions
>
> Maybe it wasn't a very good solution that deserved to be shot down.
Maybe it was; what is needed here, is the feedback that makes it better.
Work towards a very good solution deserves mo
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> you shoot down solutions
Maybe it wasn't a very good solution that deserved to be shot down.
//Peter
pgpWdBSgiDfHp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:55:34 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> The complaint is slow to stable arches
Yes.
> by specifying "-* arch" it would signify that ONLY that arch uses
> that version of the ebuild - and it would be up to the arch te
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was
> > really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch"
> > solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping"
> > keywords, in the absence of
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:12:42 +
"Steven J. Long" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Christopher Head wrote:
> > > If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always
> > > growing, obviously something has to be done. I just don't want
> > > "som
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Christopher Head wrote:
> > If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always growing,
> > obviously something has to be done. I just don't want "something" to
> > mean "don't have a stable tree". The stable tree provides me
Ruud Koolen wrote:
>
> As a compromise solution for minor archs, it would be nice if there were a
> portage feature allowing me to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS those packages that are
> keyworded both ~arch, and stable on some major arch. For example, on m68k, it
> would select packages that are keyworded ~m68
On 01/16/2014 05:27 PM, Sergey Popov wrote:
>
> Thanks, for the proposal. IIRC, there was similar backroom agreement in
> some minor arches, look at how armin76 stabilized packages earlier -
> sometimes he drops vast amount of keywords on ia64/sparc/m68k to
> unstable in stabilization requests.
>
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:59:49 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> There was previous discussion of destable-keywording the kernel. How
> has that gone?
That was for vanilla-sources only, because that has restricted to only
the latest upstream version; as that makes the version chan
Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:28:09 +0100 as excerpted:
>> Another option (and I don't mean to step on any toes or call anyone out
>> here, these are just examples) may be to just deprecate stabilizing
>> certain software. Packages such as the stuff in app-vim/ or app-emacs/
>> or some
Michael Orlitzky posted on Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:50:30 -0500 as excerpted:
> As I mentioned in a reply to William, right now I can decide when stuff
> is broken and keyword the newer versions. The proposal is to force me
> onto the new versions, which is strictly worse from my perspective.
Force??
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:51:49 -0500 as excerpted:
> Given constrained manpower the options basically are some variation on:
> 1. Status quo - for some packages stable gets REALLY old, and likely has
> problems that maintainers ignore. You can't force somebody to maintain
> som
On 01/15/2014 03:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:48:53AM +0700, gro...@gentoo.org wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's
>>> they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arc
41 matches
Mail list logo
