On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:43:19AM +0100, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Whatever outside the arch testing (like tinderbox) is off topic here since it
> is a completely different argument.
>
> To make John Helmert III happy, I just switched to tatt; so my actual
> workflow is tatt + nattka
On martedì 8 novembre 2022 14:26:18 CET Michał Górny wrote:
> If the code was
> public, I could try figuring it out and perhaps even fixing it.
Stable requests are handled by many people. o, since your requests were
ignored by all members and sam said that him, arthurzam, jsmolic are using
On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 19:23 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James wrote:
> >
> > > On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> > > > I would be in favour of stepping up the social
Hi,
Whatever outside the arch testing (like tinderbox) is off topic here since it
is a completely different argument.
To make John Helmert III happy, I just switched to tatt; so my actual
workflow is tatt + nattka and there is nothing more.
If there are unanswered questions about the arch
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 08:26:15 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> I _believe_ ago's tinderbox isn't being paid by the GF _anymore_ due to
> this reason, but he keeps it running with his own expenses. I don't mind
> this as long as the results are desirable and not phony. I still see a
> lot of value
On 8.11.2022 2.23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Of course if somebody wants to contribute to 100% FOSS tinderbox
> efforts that would be even better. Perhaps if our 100% FOSS tinderbox
> efforts addressed our needs very well, then nobody would want to
> bother with the proprietary reports, or
On 06/11/2022 10.34, Sam James wrote:
>
> ...
>
> That had two parts:
> 1. https://github.com/projg2/nattka/issues/72 &
> https://github.com/projg2/nattka/pull/73 (done)
> 2. https://github.com/arthurzam/tattoo/issues/1 (not done)
I was waiting for nattka-0.4 (which returns the field value)
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 7:34 PM John Helmert III wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 07:23:33PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Proprietary tools do contribute to this since they can
> > generate results that are harder to reproduce, but if they are clear
> > and accurate and actionable it could
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 07:23:33PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James wrote:
> >
> > > On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> > >> I would be in favour of stepping up the
> On 8 Nov 2022, at 00:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James wrote:
>
> > On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> >> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually
> >> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that
> On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually
>> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that before too, the nattka you
>> mgorny wrote is replacement
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 08:26:15AM +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> On 7.11.2022 8.07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> >> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually
> >> prohibiting this kind of things, we had
On 7.11.2022 8.07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually
>> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that before too, the nattka you
>> mgorny wrote is replacement for old
On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually
> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that before too, the nattka you
> mgorny wrote is replacement for old bugzilla bot that was ...
> closedsource and
On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 08:03:16PM +0100, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> On domenica 6 novembre 2022 14:27:40 CET John Helmert III wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, there's ONE person relying completely on a
> > proprietary arch testing system.
> >
> > Ago, could you comment on this? What's blocking
On domenica 6 novembre 2022 14:27:40 CET John Helmert III wrote:
> As far as I can tell, there's ONE person relying completely on a
> proprietary arch testing system.
>
> Ago, could you comment on this? What's blocking you from open sourcing
> your software?
Hi,
I already answered in the
On domenica 6 novembre 2022 09:15:40 CET Michał Górny wrote:
> On top of that, it seems that most of it still relies on proprietary
> software and we have no clue how *exactly* it works, and it's really,
> really hard to get a straight answer.
I'm speaking for myself. I still use getatoms.py to
On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 09:15:40AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> Arch testing's relying on automation a lot these days. Not saying
> that's bad, if it improves the state of affairs. However, I have some
> concerns, based on what I've seen lately.
>
> On top of that, it seems
Hi,
On 06/11/2022 09.15, Michał Górny wrote:
On top of that, it seems that most of it still relies on proprietary
software and we have no clue how*exactly* it works, and it's really,
really hard to get a straight answer.
I never understood how it become socially acceptable in open source
> On 6 Nov 2022, at 08:15, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Hi, everyone.
>
> Arch testing's relying on automation a lot these days. Not saying
> that's bad, if it improves the state of affairs. However, I have some
> concerns, based on what I've seen lately.
Thanks for starting this discussion, I
Hi, everyone.
Arch testing's relying on automation a lot these days. Not saying
that's bad, if it improves the state of affairs. However, I have some
concerns, based on what I've seen lately.
On top of that, it seems that most of it still relies on proprietary
software and we have no clue how
22 matches
Mail list logo
