-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Mylchreest wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:09:39PM -0500, Daniel Goller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Assuming there are no objections I can take over the following.
./app-benchmarks/cpuburn
./app-benchmarks/bonnie++
Regards,
John
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2006 at 10:02:10 +0200, Daniel Goller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The following packages require a new maintainer, some might just be
absorbed into their herds w/o a direct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
On 5/5/06, Daniel Goller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The following packages require a new maintainer, some might just be
absorbed into their herds w/o a direct maintainer leaving
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The following packages require a new maintainer, some might just be
absorbed into their herds w/o a direct maintainer leaving them to the
teams maintaining those herds, others might face extinction w/o a direct
maintainer.
./app-admin/gtkdiskfree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What is interesting is that Source Mage Linux has already voted on a proposal
similar to mine[2]. I truly think that making some changes in the gentoo
way
would benefit us and make gentoo a truly better distribution.
Ryan
Gentoo Developer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:41:31AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
inviting community) and why you think stricter test make for better
developers, why you think harder tests would cut down more on the quick
in and out people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Cort wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:42:57 +0200
Bryan Ăstergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So.. What can we do to improve things?
I think that there should be some sort of organized way of connecting
potential mentors and potential
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ryan Phillips wrote:
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Tim Yamin wrote:
Speaking of which, has anybody done any tests with svk?
(http://svk.elixus.org)
And: http://svk.elixus.org/?WhySVK -- it would be interesting to compare
checkout
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Is there a reason for this besides the definitions not falling into
place as they should? I'm not seeing a benefit from this to be honest.
People refer to teams as herds a lot of the time. It has become a
statement over
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
Daniel Goller posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:50:17 -0500:
* In the case of disagreement on policy among QA members, the majority
of established QA members must agree with the action.
you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Loeser wrote:
Daniel Goller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is the newest revision of my proposal. Not much has changed, but I
added and changed some small things. Constructive feedback is
appreciated. I'd like to get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is the newest revision of my proposal. Not much has changed, but I
added and changed some small things. Constructive feedback is
appreciated. I'd like to get this voted on by the council at the next
meeting.
* The QA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team
may request that devrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights.
Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to
devrel.
define persistently, how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* QA will take an active role in cleaning up unmaintained and broken
packages from the tree.
I hope this is meant to read more like:
QA will take an active role in cleaning up unmaintained packages from
the tree if they are severly broken or
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 01:15 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Hi,
It is my pleasure to announce publicly that ian! has passed all
necessary quizzes to touch our holy gra^H^H^H portage tree.
He'll be helping mcummings in his perpetuate combat with perl and its
dependencies. May the source be
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 09:48 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
didn't he ask for people who know a particular application very well?
If you actually read the GLEP, you will note that there is a provision
to expand the idea to include herd testers.
someone might like to help with testing one
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 09:36 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Eldad Zack wrote:
Hello,
Sometimes it becomes a problem whenever a new release or a tricky bugfix
comes
up for a certain package.
To improve QA we can let our userbase help, especially people who use
certain
packages
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 01:17 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the
simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went
2.0 .
Why didn't you file (Gentoo) security bugs?
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 21:20 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote:
exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
going woah, what? and if masked
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 19:18 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
everyone wait the 30 days to remove
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:40 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 20:04 -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As many are aware nss-3.11 and nspr-4.6.1 are in the tree. Many
packages still set the {nss|nspr}-libs and includes. With
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:15 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Asking developers to proxy takes almost as much time as it does to
ask them to maintain a package by themselves.
wrong
The developer is
directly responsible for anything he commits, so he will have to still
test the ebuild, still test
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 18:34 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 3/23/06, Daniel Goller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:15 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Asking developers to proxy takes almost as much time as it does to
ask them to maintain a package by themselves.
wrong
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 13:09 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote:
Bret Towe wrote:
perhaps having some proxys of a sort that accept patchs and such
from trusted users that would commit fixes to portage would help.
similiar to the kernel format that way users can 'commit'/help out quickly
without
On Sunday 26 February 2006 16:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:22:17 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Yes, Gentoo is supposed to be fun, but we also have a responsibility
| to our users to ensure we are providing them with the best possible
| distro we can.
from an overlay ;)
you get the idea
i will add your email to the dvd::rip filter in kmail so i hopefully do not
miss things
wife's surgery is friday, so i don't expect to do much before then
Thanks,
Daniel Goller
pgpzxz08W7VDT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 09 December 2005 08:19 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 01:09:50AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
so the video herd policy is to remove packages until you're left with
a small enough subset of packages you can handle ?
I'd rather say that we
On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:59 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Arch teams need to be allowed to override maintainers where
| appropriate,
|
| Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince them
|
On Sunday 04 September 2005 04:52 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
package.mask. ~arch means candidate for going stable after more
testing, not might work.
Agreed, but we both
Allen Parker wrote:
parrot
yah, what he said!
/parrot
On another note, Casey, you should attempt to figure out if anything
you've said might have been taken the wrong way... a while back, i
managed to get myself banned from #apache after going off like an
idiot and then making a comment that was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Northrup wrote:
| Joshua Baergen wrote:
|
|
|2) There are gentoo.org references to #gentoo-dev, but the process of
|interfacing, mentoring, and recruiting are self-referential beginning
|with a bootstrap of being on the good side of an existing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 22:15 -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
|
|-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|Hash: SHA1
|
|Mike Frysinger wrote:
|| On Thursday 26 May 2005 10:04 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
||
||I'm asking because I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
| yes, it's finally that time ... after months of hearing us say 'we
want to get
| new baselayout stable asap', we're serious
|
| so can people please try out baselayout-1.11.12-r2+ and see if they
notice any
| regressions ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| Another useflag-related question.
|
| Currently, the encode useflag is defined as follow:
|
| encode - Adds support for MEncoder or LaME encoder, wherever applicable
|
| this is a loose definition which is quite
34 matches
Mail list logo
