On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:37:09PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
| enough to document all
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:45:30 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go
| from there.
|
| #120088 (dev-lang/php breaks non-interactivity and does not work on
| default USE) has nothing to do with webapp-config. What's your
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:37 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go from
there.
That bug has nothing to do with webapp-config. That bug is for PHP.
Could you file one that is, please?
Many thanks,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:54:45PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:45:30 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go
| from there.
|
| #120088 (dev-lang/php breaks non-interactivity and does not work
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion will just get repeated over and over.
Huh? I
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed.
I'm afraid you've been mis-informed. The PHP herd has provided a set of
default USE flags to go into the profiles, and there's a comment at the
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion will just get repeated over
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.
What, you mean the tree isn't someone's personal playground?
| *
My personal opinion here is that a _LOT_ of this should be common sense.
But just to put in my two pennies..
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 05:22:17PM -0500, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-herd assistance in keeping
the tree in a good state. This is
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 10:58:35PM +, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| * The QA team will maintain a list of current QA Standards. The
| list is not meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but
| rather a dynamic document that will be updated as new problems are
|
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 05:22:17PM -0500, Mark Loeser
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| * The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-herd assistance in
| keeping the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding
| and pointing
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 11:21:47PM +, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 05:22:17PM -0500, Mark Loeser
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| * The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-herd assistance in
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| * In the case of disagreement on policy among QA members, the
| majority of established QA members must agree with the action.
|
| Perhaps pushing it to an open forum on -dev/-core for consensus works
| better here?
The problem with that is, it usually ends up
Hi Mark,
Thanks for posting this. I've a few suggestions to make (see below). I
support all the other points in your proposal.
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 17:22 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 18:41 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
While you may not think that soliciting comments is useful ( and in some
limited cases I would agree with you ) giving people the opportunity to
comment also means you just covered your ass, in terms of people going
where the hell did that
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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
yeah, thats totally understandable. Its a best-efforts thing. I just
don't want neccessary to be deemed true for something which has an
arguable point with technical merit. Blatent mkdir-esque madness would
be more black than white, and I'd hope for this to try and
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is meant to prevent the case where the QA team ( or a subset; the
established QA members ) decides to make unilateral changes to the tree
( or large subset thereof ) without even necessarily talking to the
affected developers.
While you may not think
Mark Loeser wrote:
Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this
enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people
believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the
council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 17:22 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
I'd like to see this say
* In case of emergency, or after a
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this
enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people
believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the
council about one of our
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:22:17 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| * The QA team will maintain a list of current QA Standards. The
| list is not meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but
| rather a dynamic document that will be
Mark Loeser wrote:
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this
enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people
believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the
council
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
No, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. You want to commit
first and let the maintainer bring it to the council. I'm saying the
maintainer has the right to have any non-security commit to his/her
package reverted pending a decision.
Yea, I
Mark Loeser wrote:
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in
the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else.
I think it really
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 16:29 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this
enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people
believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the
council
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 19:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in
the case of disagreement
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 19:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I'm looking at this as innocent until proven guilty versus guilty
until proven innocent. When parties are in disagreement, the _current_
situation should stand until the council (or the two groups in question)
resolves
101 - 128 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
