On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
What I meant is when I get a stabilization bug for
cat-egory/foo-1.2.3 which depends on =other-cat/bar-1.0.5. The
latter is amd64 but not alpha or ~alpha. And it, in turn, has yet
more deps in the same vein. Now I
Hi!
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
The truly arch-dependent bugs are what wastes my time:
For example:
- dependencies not being keyworded for arch or ~arch but only
amd64/~amd64
- dependencies not even
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make
community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code
review) then
On 07/09/2015 10:45 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org
mailto:ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
mailto:hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The quality problem is that we have too many
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Lots of stuff except for the part below.
So basically Gentoo Sunrise? :)
In any case, to some extent the review workflow already exists on the
proxy
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:11:34 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
The only fear I have about CI, is that we turn into every other distro
out there where it builds, ship it!
This would be an improvement over the current situation.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On 07/09/2015 01:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make
community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code
review) then you solve several problems at
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm not sure if you followed my argumentation. I basically said that it
is unrealistic to enforce a review-only workflow and that it should/can
start within gentoo-internal projects. You are just repeating what I
already
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:20:14 +0200 hasufell wrote:
On 07/05/2015 08:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote:
It's important that the review flow is well-understood and efficient.
This is impossible in our case due to the lack of manpower.
We
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:07:34 +0200
Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
In essence,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make
community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code
review) then you solve several problems at once, because you need _less_
developers. Are
Rich Freeman wrote:
I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up putting
the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit,
I think you're right. I also think those developers should quit right
here and now. I don't think they will.
//Peter
On 07/09/2015 09:19 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:20:14 +0200 hasufell wrote:
On 07/05/2015 08:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote:
It's important that the review flow is well-understood and efficient.
This is impossible in
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up putting
the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit,
I think you're right. I also think those developers should quit right
here and
Dnia 2015-06-26, o godz. 22:42:07
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hello,
Here's a quick patch to git-r3.eclass for review. It fixes handling of
repositories where submodules were partially removed -- they're still
listed in .gitmodules but the path was 'git rm'-ed. In this case,
15 matches
Mail list logo
