On 14/08/13 17:56, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> [3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit
>>
>> And all boils down to the fact gerrit needs to be fixed to take
>> patches from a mailing list
>
> Usually Gerrit just needs an OpenID in order to accept git push via SS
Luca Barbato wrote:
> > [3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit
>
> And all boils down to the fact gerrit needs to be fixed to take
> patches from a mailing list
Usually Gerrit just needs an OpenID in order to accept git push via SSH.
That seems significantly better to me than
On 13/08/13 10:10, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> [3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit
And all boils down to the fact gerrit needs to be fixed to take patches
from a mailing list or provide some sane alias to cope with it's
specific ways...
lu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
> On 14:37 Tue 13 Aug , Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If a maintainer is holding something up for months by all means
>> escalate it if you think it is justified, but if a maintainer just
>> wants a few days to look into things,
On 14:37 Tue 13 Aug , Rich Freeman wrote:
> If a maintainer is holding something up for months by all means
> escalate it if you think it is justified, but if a maintainer just
> wants a few days to look into things, that isn't asking too much. If
> this were a security patch I might feel diff
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> One thing I think is really important is respecting the maintainers. If
> maintainer said "please send the patch upstream before committing to
> cvs", it is _not_ OK to just ignore that. There are other options
> available like masking
On 8/13/13 8:39 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Your arguments make sense but you should also consider it the other
> way: When you are maintaining a package properly by forwarding patches
> upstream, having $randomdev jumping in, adding a patch, and letting you
> clean up the mess is kind of annoying.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:00:57 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> Tomáš, considering that libreoffice and libreoffice-bin were both
> broken on ~arch (so ~arch users did not have a compatible office
> suite to fall back on); the bug had 33 people in the CC list; a
> working patch was submitted, wit
On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 10:10 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> As per my comment in bugzilla [1] I said that the patch should be
> submitted upstream prior having it in cvs.
>
>
> Yet you decided to completely ignore my statement and just smash in
> the patch anyway [2].
>
>
> Please don't do this e
As per my comment in bugzilla [1] I said that the patch should be submitted
upstream prior having it in cvs.
Yet you decided to completely ignore my statement and just smash in the
patch anyway [2].
Please don't do this ever again. We had shitload of distro patches before
and it is hell to strip
10 matches
Mail list logo
