Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote: > On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" wrote: >> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla. >> This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue >> without unnecessary

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > >> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: >>> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: >>> >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly > be lured into discussing with them. > > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libunibreak/

Neat. I didn't spot those new fbreader feature(s).  I also didn't notice m-n status on fbreader deps. I'll review this thread, research upstream(s), etc.  (if it's within my abilities & available time, I'll maint) - kuzetsa P.S. yes: at times, QA messages are a tad vague On 12/14/2017 0

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/03/2017 07:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to >> view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers / >> staff leave > It isn't just the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/03/2017 08:19 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > this 18 min talk by Donnie Berkholz from 2012, about Gentoo actually: Someone in private linked that video to me today. Yeah :( > Do not tolerate bad behavior by anyone! --snip-- > It is important to take action which clearly rejects > unacceptable

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

More than zero posts on this thread are consistent with this point: On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote: > 5. Reasons for warnings and bans > --snip-- > c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row > d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated > questions >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/05/2017 06:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated. >> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't >> automatically abuse

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

s about various actions by specific people tends to escalate hostility. On the other hand, generalizations about how gentoo-related communication should occur isn't a "shots fired" or "touchy subject" situation. TL;DR - Public fighting doesn't help gentoo. -k

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

1 / 1b seems reasonable for mitigating signal/noise issues. (previously unaware non-dev subscribers //currently// could post) On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > ...establish the following changes to the mailing lists: > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deleting old news items

On 01/06/2018 05:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 6 Jan 2018, Duncan wrote: >> $ equery b news.eselect >> app-admin/eselect-1.4.10 (/usr/share/eselect/modules/news.eselect) >> So in that case it's not the PM, but eselect. > In fact, it is the PM that would do the filtering, before

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] introduce Prefix 17.0 profiles.

On 01/08/2018 01:38 AM, Benda Xu wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to introduce some 17.0 profile for Prefix. It also > introduces separate profiles to support different ranges of linux > kernels. > > | name | linux| glibc | >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list

On 01/10/2018 05:57 AM, David Seifert wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 08:55 +0100, Lars Wendler wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:48:56 +0300 Eray Aslan wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:20:56PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: * Posting to the list will only be possible to Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] introduce Prefix 17.0 profiles.

On 01/09/2018 08:21 AM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On January 8, 2018 9:39:47 PM EST, Benda Xu <hero...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Hi kuzetsa, >> >> kuzetsa <kuze...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> The term "beyond" feels wrong & conf

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list

On 01/10/2018 09:55 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 10/01/18 08:55, Lars Wendler wrote: >> Seems we're turning into an elitist club or something... > Gentoo has already had the reputation of being an elitist club for > years. As such I'd like to see steps to remedy this status, rather than >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package up for grabs: games-engines/love

From freenode / #gentoo-proxy-maint [09:13:53] do I need to reply to the gentoo-dev ML to be able to proxy-maintain games-engines/love or can I just fire off the github PR with commits for EAPI 6, version bump, etc. (it's not up to date & being dropped by current maintainer) Resolution:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deleting old news items

On 01/03/2018 05:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu wto, 02.01.2018 o godzinie 19∶13 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner > napisał: >> Problem: >> >> New stages have numerous news items listed that are likely not relevant, >> but are shown due to limitations in the filtering in NEWS items. E.g. on a >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deleting old news items

On 01/03/2018 06:07 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, Alec Warner wrote: >> Problem: >> New stages have numerous news items listed that are likely not >> relevant, but are shown due to limitations in the filtering in NEWS >> items. E.g. on a recent stage3: >> [...] > We could

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

On 12/16/2017 10:14 AM, Nils Freydank wrote: > Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017, 23:41:45 CET schrieb kuzetsa: >> On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote: >>> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans >>> >> --snip-- >> >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Help with category for Authenticator

On 08/28/2018 10:32 AM, Alexander Trotsenko wrote: > Hello, guys! > > I tried asking this question in #gentoo-proxy-maint IRC and I was told I > should venture for gentoo-dev mailing list. > > So I introduced a new package into Gentoo, Authenticator >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

On 07/09/2018 06:29 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, E, 09.07.2018 kell 10:40, kirjutas Michał Górny: >> Hi, >> >> We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail >> addresses >> for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of >> developers is using

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

On 07/10/2018 09:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:38 AM kuzetsa wrote: >> >> I think authorship is a good point / distinction, Mart. >> >> Authorship was never shown in dev-timeline for addresses >> which aren't @gentoo.org anyway. That's a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Integrating Portage with other package managers

On 03/08/2018 07:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/08/2018 12:54 AM, Benda Xu wrote: >> >> This title itself is amusing enough >> >> Motherfuckers need package management >> > > Which if it is not clear, is intended to be funny. > > the colorful language was proportional to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Integrating Portage with other package managers

no good way to even fetch the source, I mean. Sorry about not proofreading: On 03/08/2018 09:47 AM, kuzetsa wrote: > dependencies which can't otherwise be satisfied is the > point of the original poster / creator of this thread: I'm certain I worded that wrong. My intent had been to say

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness

On 03/26/2018 09:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:19 PM, kuzetsa <kuze...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 03/20/2018 08:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> >>> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is >>> basical

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness

On 03/20/2018 08:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Benda Xu wrote: >> William Hubbs writes: >> >>> I do feel that this decision reflects badly on us as a community and >>> should be reversed immediately. The proper way to deal

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signed-off-by verification incoming

On 09/29/2018 09:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 9:25 AM Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> >> Some kind of repoman support would make this much easier to handle. As >> it is, doing this by hand for the trivial case (only my own changes) >> is a PITA. repoman could grow some kind of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signed-off-by verification incoming

On 09/29/2018 10:52 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2018-09-29 15:14, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> Please: >> >> 0a) Explain to me how to fix my commits that I now can't push, or > > Like you have already figured out, "git commit --signoff" when doing > profile/eclass changes and to fix things,