[gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

Hello, everyone. The current workflow for handling github pull requests is at least suboptimal. Handling pull requests takes a fair effort from the few developers contributing there, and the progress is often stalled by package maintainers which are either unresponsive or not registered on github

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Samstag, 12. September 2015, 21:12:25 schrieb Michał Górny: > Potential solution: bi-dir github <=> bugzilla integration > == The general idea is nice and neat. > - handling comment edits

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:12:25 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > 1. Many of the Gentoo developers have different nicknames on GitHub. > Some developers don't even set their real names which makes them even > harder to find. This isn't directly related to your proposal, but may I jump

[gentoo-dev] What is the status of phone/tablet support?

I asked in #gentoo-embedded on freenode, but I would like to pose this question to a wider auidence through the list. What is the status of phone/tablet support? In specific, I am curious about: * Modern hardware options (especially those without a hardware keyboard) * Status of F/OSS drivers *

Re: [gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

Am Samstag, 12. September 2015, 15:12:08 schrieb Justin Lecher (jlec): > Hi, > > I would like to discuss the pro and cons of usage of symlinks in the > tree, which are possible now as we aren't bound to CVS anymore > Please please just ban them completely. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

Dnia 2015-09-12, o godz. 15:30:45 "Justin Lecher (jlec)" napisał(a): > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 12/09/15 15:19, hasufell wrote: > > +1 for banning symlinks > > > > mrueg just mentioned a very crucial point. There are filesystem which > don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:11:27PM +0200, hasufell wrote: > We should probably auto-attach the patch from the pull request. This > can easily be done with link-rewriting, e.g.: > https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/83 to > https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/83.patch > yields a nice

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

On 09/12/2015 09:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Potential solution: bi-dir github <=> bugzilla integration > == > > My current idea would be pretty much that: > > 1. a new dedicated Gentoo bug would be automatically created for every >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Samstag, 12. September 2015, 23:31:11 schrieb W. Trevor King: > Right, thanks. In that case, I think you'll need a hook to push a new > patch whenever the GitHub branch is updated, rebased, etc. That could > make for a lot of Bugzilla spam,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

On 09/12/2015 11:07 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:11:27PM +0200, hasufell wrote: >> We should probably auto-attach the patch from the pull request. This >> can easily be done with link-rewriting, e.g.: >> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/83 to >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 11:15:14PM +0200, hasufell wrote: > Because that is not a valid bug report. Patches must be attached to > bugzilla. Right, thanks. In that case, I think you'll need a hook to push a new patch whenever the GitHub branch is updated, rebased, etc. That could make for a lot

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 01:30:44PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > If the patch is automatedly filed against bugzilla, people will > assume viewing that patch tells them all they need to know. > > But the reality is somebody may rebase/amend/repush to the > publicised branch location before any

Re: [gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 In my wine-a-holics overlay, I used symlinks. I found that occassionally, git would act up and replace the symlink with the linked file when committing. I never found out how or why, but for this reason alone, I highly recommend against it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

On 13 September 2015 at 09:15, hasufell wrote: > Because that is not a valid bug report. Patches must be attached to > bugzilla. I would recommend against attaching the pull in patch form against bugzilla. It might lead to unintentionally misleading consequences. If the

[gentoo-dev] Re: www-client/chromium gtk3 support

Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 12 Sep 2015 06:48:13 -0400 as excerpted: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> >> Just bite the bullet and create entire USE flag families such that an >> ebuild can choose the flag appropriate to how it actually uses it. >> AFAIK

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> > >> > I like the general 'gtk' flag we generally use to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Just bite the bullet and create entire USE flag families such that an > ebuild can choose the flag appropriate to how it actually uses it. AFAIK > this would need EAPI help, for reasons given below, but it should be >

Re: [gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

Saturday 12 Sep 2015 15:30:45, Justin Lecher (jlec) wrote : > On 12/09/15 15:19, hasufell wrote: > > +1 for banning symlinks > > > > mrueg just mentioned a very crucial point. There are filesystem which > don't support symlinks and would break everything. > > +1 too A functionality that

Re: [gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015, Justin Lecher (jlec) wrote: > I would like to discuss the pro and cons of usage of symlinks in the > tree, which are possible now as we aren't bound to CVS anymore > We have quite a number of ebuilds already in the tree defining > functionality for both, regular

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE="gui"

On 09/12/2015 01:52 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 09/11/2015 01:34 PM, hasufell wrote: >> I already use IUSE=gui and will keep doing that. > >> USE flags in gentoo are the best and the worst thing at the same >> time. They are also mostly the main reason people don't like >> gentoo, because USE

[gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, I would like to discuss the pro and cons of usage of symlinks in the tree, which are possible now as we aren't bound to CVS anymore We have quite a number of ebuilds already in the tree defining functionality for both, regular version and live

Re: [gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

+1 for banning symlinks

Re: [gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 12/09/15 15:19, hasufell wrote: > +1 for banning symlinks > mrueg just mentioned a very crucial point. There are filesystem which don't support symlinks and would break everything. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0

Re: [gentoo-dev] symlinks in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/12/2015 03:12 PM, Justin Lecher (jlec) wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to discuss the pro and cons of usage of symlinks in > the tree, which are possible now as we aren't bound to CVS anymore > > We have quite a number of ebuilds already in