Ben de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 2) Continued presence of forcefully retired devs
> It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for
> anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places
> where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channe
Lukasz Damentko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part.
>
> 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our
> developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a
> reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted
> ove
I agree that packages shouldn't be removed or moved because they have no
active developer maintaining them - that is going to take the value of
portage down quite a lot. Outdated packages do too, but not in quite the
same way.
I like the idea of a list or mailing list of developers willing to help
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Also, devs willing to maintain
> packages but then later retiring and leaving the packages in limbo.
> Maybe there should be some policy such as, when devs retire if no one
> else steps up to maintain the package, then it automatically gets
> moved to sunrise overlay and only
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Brooks wrote:
>> Random idea: How about a different bug assignee for maintainer-needed
>> packages with provided ebuilds/patches? Either something generic, or
>> try to go for something more category/package specifi
Zac Medico wrote:
> Does package.keywords seem like a good solution for the types of
> problems it's meant to solve? Would anybody like to discuss any
> alternative approaches?
I think it's a good and easy solution to the problem(s) solar described
in #55321. But as Marius [1] said this can become
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Tobias Scherbaum
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> >
> >> However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in
> >> portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I
> >> doubt it's wo
John Brooks wrote:
> Random idea: How about a different bug assignee for maintainer-needed
> packages with provided ebuilds/patches? Either something generic, or
> try to go for something more category/package specific (herds, etc).
> Lots of work for bugwranglers, though. There is a huge differenc
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Tobias Scherbaum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Santiago M. Mola wrote:
>
>> However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in
>> portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I
>> doubt it's worthy.
>
> I don't think it's a huge wo
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> I think that's all we need in order to know how were things when the
> patch was added and if it needs to be pushed/tracked upstream, removed
> in the next version of the package, etc.
>
> Some of us already put these kind of headers, or at least an URL to
> upstream bug
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > What is the benefit?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> There is none really. Allow all use flags to exist in metadata.xml. It's
> really more of a clarification to the GLEP if this is allowed.
Agreed, it has no benefit at all plus would lead to some kind of useless
duplication o
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 15:14 -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> I have a thinkpad with the right hardware, so I can take this one, did
> you already pimp out your other thinkpad packages?
I don't recall of other thinkpad packages that are still mine, but if
you see my name on them, they're all yours. Th
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 16:18 +0100, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> sys-auth/thinkfinger
I have a thinkpad with the right hardware, so I can take this one, did
you already pimp out your other thinkpad packages?
--
Olivier Crête
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Developer
signature.asc
Description: This
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 04:18:53PM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
> There are three ebuilds that I used to maintain that I no longer have the
> hardware for.
> I'm hoping that one of you could give them some love. Do assign the bugs to
> yourself,
> and please drop me from the relevant metad
Good afternoon fellow developers,
There are three ebuilds that I used to maintain that I no longer have the
hardware for.
I'm hoping that one of you could give them some love. Do assign the bugs to
yourself,
and please drop me from the relevant metadata.xml once you do.
They are:
media-video/n
On 13:11 Wed 13 Aug , Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Further questions regarding use.desc have come up with regard to this
> GLEP. My proposed solution would be a potential amendment to the GLEP to
> state that
>
>
>
> Would be allowed. This syntax is not actually disallowed or allowed by
> the
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:13:26 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the benefit?
There is none really. Allow all use flags to exist in metadata.xml.
It's really more of a clarification to the GLEP if this is allowed.
[1] Come t
Andrew D Kirch a écrit :
Here's the script that I used to generate this. I have not manually
reviewed all of thousands of patches to determine the unique situation
of each patch, however I would like a suggestion on how to demonstrate
_real_ statistics short of auditing each and every patch in
18 matches
Mail list logo
