On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:09:29PM -0500, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with that is, it usually ends up with too many pointless
comments from people saying how things could be fixed in the distant
future, or whining that it isn't explicitly forbidden by policy on
Hi Mark,
On 2/27/06, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your change seems to imply that the QA team must wait for the council's
okay to go forth and fix the package, rather the QA team able to act on
its own. If that is the case, I don't see how we would ever be able to
get things done
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:12:52PM -0500, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is meant to prevent the case where the QA team ( or a subset; the
established QA members ) decides to make unilateral changes to the tree
( or large subset thereof )
NOTE: Please post all replies on gentoo-desktop rather than gentoo-dev.
It's about that time again, folks. We're going to have desktop project
lead elections within the next month or so.
Who's interested in running for lead? Feel free to post a bit on why
you'll be the best lead ever, as well,
On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in the
tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right.
The general consensus over the years has been that if something cannot be
fixed due to portage
On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:29, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 02:19:40PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're
screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree.
Actually, there is a solution for this, and
Jeffrey Forman wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 22:54 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
I second that there is a massive confusion of naming, and this needs to
get sorted out (or atleast explained) Because I'm sure the mirrors will
start getting slamed with people downloading 2006.0. Lets not waste
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
| and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions
| in the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else.
So if
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0500 Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I think I agree with the part that security@ having near final say.
Security have (admittedly not very often) screwed up in the past.
Fixing a security issue at the expense of utterly h0rking an arch, for
example, is not an
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 + John Mylchreest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| In this specific instance, impossible is effectively a point of view.
| For me the question comes down to this.. If QA trump maintainer, then
| who picks the QA staff? If anyone can become QA staff, then this is
|
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:02:57 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in
| the tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:37:52PM +, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 + John Mylchreest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| In this specific instance, impossible is effectively a point of view.
| For me the question comes down to this.. If QA trump
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:46:23 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Where is this general consensus documented (other than an email sent
| out a few days ago). I'd have to go with Paul on this assumption. I
| don't see the problem with keeping a package such as stu's in portage
| as long
bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything useful to
last rites e-mail. It will be punted in 30 days.
-Alec Warner
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| So if the maintainer sticks SANDBOX_DISABLE=1 rm -fr / in global
| scope and refuses to move it, QA will have to get council approval
| to fix it?
|
| Use some common sense when showing an example please. We all know
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:09:42 + John Mylchreest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| My point was the more along the lines that the existing QA team need
| to convince the rest of the development community that they know what
| they're doing first. Whats stopping the existing QA team disregarding
| all
On Monday 27 February 2006 12:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:15 + Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Again, then we are going to get into the argument of the definition
| of an emergency and never be able to get anything done. We really
| hope problems
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:15:13 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything useful to
| last rites e-mail. It will be punted in 30 days.
No no no. Do this properly. Clean up *all* the broken blackbox applets,
not just the one that has
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600
Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We all know that
something that stupid needs to be delt with quickly.
So you're agreeing that someone needs to be able to act should a
package maintainer screw up sufficiently badly, and the obvious
candidate for that
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:08:34PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave enough
to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
wrobel and I would be very interested to see such a document. In the
meantime, we shall continue to
27.2.2006, 18:23:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:15:13 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything useful to
| last rites e-mail. It will be punted in 30 days.
No no no. Do this properly. Clean up *all* the
Mark Loeser wrote:
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
My suspicion is that the more common problem is going to be inaccessible
developers, rather than uncooperative ones. Certainly, if a maintainer
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:54:13 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yet as a member of maintainer herd haven't dealt with that
properly for quite an extensive period of time
Sounds like someone still needs to read herds.xml.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:21:29 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| if something is going to lead to considerable damage and the
| maintainer is unwilling to resolve the issue, then i'm pretty sure
| there's more to be resolved here than fixing a package
Sure. There're other parts of the
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:54:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| *Please*, be so kind and look at metadata.xml for those ebuild, then
| just either do it *yourself* or ask someone from your fellow-devs in
| commonbox herd to do it for the other ebuilds that you failed to
| mention above...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:05:58 -0600 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Of course, that leaves the question of who decides on the severity of
| a QA violation?
All this talk of severity, and no talk of ease of detection or ease
of fixing...
Allow me to explain. There are certain not
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
My suspicion is that the more common problem is going to be inaccessible
developers, rather than
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
| and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions
| in the case of disagreement between the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:15:13 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything useful to
| last rites e-mail. It will be punted in 30 days.
No no no. Do this properly. Clean up *all* the broken blackbox applets,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:34:00PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:05:00 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Is there any valid reason that we can't have portage do this
| automatically. This particular way is very user-un-friendly.
There's exactly one set of
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave enough
to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
This isn't the first time we've heard this tune from you, and alas I
fear it won't be the last.
You know
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:23:07 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:15:13 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything
| | useful to last rites e-mail. It will be punted in
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
| enough to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
|
| This isn't the first
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:37:09PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
| enough to document all
27.2.2006, 21:37:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
| enough to document all the ways in which
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:45:30 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go
| from there.
|
| #120088 (dev-lang/php breaks non-interactivity and does not work on
| default USE) has nothing to do with webapp-config. What's your
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:37 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go from
there.
That bug has nothing to do with webapp-config. That bug is for PHP.
Could you file one that is, please?
Many thanks,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:54:45PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:45:30 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go
| from there.
|
| #120088 (dev-lang/php breaks non-interactivity and does not work
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion will just get repeated over and over.
Huh? I
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed.
I'm afraid you've been mis-informed. The PHP herd has provided a set of
default USE flags to go into the profiles, and there's a comment at the
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion will just get repeated over
41 matches
Mail list logo
