* Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [07/08/06 19:20 +0300]:
Well perhaps we should just look at the overall usage of the mail box
instead of how it's used. I think there is already some limit in our
policy for how big you can keep your mailbox.
Last night some of us infra-folk had a chat in
On 08:28 Tue 07 Aug , Lars Weiler wrote:
Last night some of us infra-folk had a chat in #gentoo-infra
about this commitlog-mailinglist. solar stated that the
ammount of messages in the dev-mailboxes was the reason to
shut down that list some years ago (I have to fetch my
archives to
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 08:28 +0200, Lars Weiler wrote:
* Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [07/08/06 19:20 +0300]:
Well perhaps we should just look at the overall usage of the mail box
instead of how it's used. I think there is already some limit in our
policy for how big you can keep your
Ned Ludd a écrit :
I was alluding to more of it being a resource pig.. Which it is
of course.
Could it be done like mailman's Digest mail? With one mail every half
hour (or 15 minutes, whatever) instead of every single commit? Wouldn't
that help both load and storage on woodpecker?
We
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
we're not talking developers, we're talking users.
Nope, because the point of the die is for the developer to catch it
during testing. Before commit to tree, so the user never has a chance to
experience it.
it's inappropriate for a
* Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [07/08/06 23:57 -0700]:
Hadn't heard that. The list disappeared with no explanation that I recall.
It worked at the end of 2003. So it must have survived the
move to lark… But I can't find any announcement about
shutting down the list.
If that's the way
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
we're not talking developers, we're talking users.
Nope, because the point of the die is for the developer to catch it
during testing. Before commit to tree, so the user never
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
-mike
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
bumping? Surely everyone does that before they call echangelog and
repoman?
--
Richard Brown
Steve Long kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Steve Long kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163262
What is the situation regarding the hooks in general?
A user feature as said in the bug.
What, you mean the bit I quoted? I am well aware it's a user feature,
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
On Monday 06 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Ryan Hill kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
because TODO wasn't around. Vote
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Richard Brown wrote:
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
bumping?
you cant tell me the build experience a
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:36:23AM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
-mike
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
bumping? Surely everyone
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Aug
2007 20:23:11 -0400:
we're not talking developers, we're talking users. it's inappropriate
for a user to have spent significant time compiling a package only to
have it fail because TODO does not
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:09:34 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
arch-specific patches are almost always wrong. The last thing people
need is to come along and find some arch developer has applied a bad
arch-specific patch without asking first...
Thing is,
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 05:38:25 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Richard Brown wrote:
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt
trust it
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'm saying that there are plenty of past occurrences of arch teams
applying arch-specific patches that were either outright wrong or
really required on all archs. Most arch developers aren't familiar with
the source of the
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:14:17 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the patches are conditional then nobody else is affected anyway.
And that's the issue -- this claim is incorrect. With conditional
patching everyone is affected. A common example used to be selinux
patches that were
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:14:17 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the patches are conditional then nobody else is affected anyway.
And that's the issue -- this claim is incorrect. With conditional
patching everyone is affected. A common example used to be
Bernard Cafarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Feedback, comments, suggestions, other ideas are welcome!
As a GNUstep non-user, I am not really competent to comment on
it...but here a small diff.
V-Li
--- gnustep-base.eclass 2007-08-07 20:43:00.0 +0200
+++ gnustep-base.eclass.new
Bernard Cafarelli ha scritto:
Hello all,
hi
that's a cool project you are working on!
I wish I could contribute actively in the future
Feedback, comments, suggestions, other ideas are welcome!
right now I found a problem (I wonder if it happens on others too) about
21 matches
Mail list logo
