Ciaran,
On 02-04-2009 15:47:05 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:53:47 +0200
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
While the first variable (EPREFIX) can be set using an eclass, the
latter two need to be set by the package manager. In particular ED,
because the value of
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:24:41 +0200
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
You seem to suggest there are issues, do you have any specific
concerns that we can address?
I've still not seen a full description of the problem you're trying to
solve with prefix. The last time we tried this there
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:53:47 +0200
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
While the first variable (EPREFIX) can be set using an eclass, the
latter two need to be set by the package manager. In particular ED,
because the value of D might not be known. EROOT and ED are
convenience variables.
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
2009/4/1 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I would like the Council to discuss the matter of Portage repeatedly
changing behaviour in
On , 01 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
Since EAPI 3 is on the agenda already, I would ask the council to
consider inclusion of mtime
I win, as always *g*
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008.04.07 21:37, Petteri Räty wrote:
Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at
least
one commit in last 60 days. We could of course just change the
slacker
script to list the activity
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 06:30:17PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
That's worrying, I'm not supposed to have commit access to the tree.
trustees docs, yes but that's the limit. To my knowledge, I've never
made a commit there either.
That's for ALL of CVS. Not just gentoo-x86.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at least
one commit in last 60 days. We could of course just change the slacker
script to list the activity for everyone during the last 60 days and
leave the interpretation to undertakers.
Regards,
On Monday 07 April 2008 04:37:18 pm Petteri Räty wrote:
Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
So I wrote a new slacker script that gets the active developers from
LDAP and checks the activity for the last 60 days. One repoman commit
should equal a couple entries on history but not sure on that. robbat2
Petteri Räty wrote:
26767 ingmar
41523 philantrop
Go KDE go! :)
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Mike Pagano kirjoitti:
On Monday 07 April 2008 04:37:18 pm Petteri Räty wrote:
Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
So I wrote a new slacker script that gets the active developers from
LDAP and checks the activity for the last 60 days. One repoman commit
should equal a couple entries on history but not
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 03:10:03AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
Guess I wasn't clear enough. There is no filtering in that list based on
the developer role in Gentoo. It's all Gentoo developers marked as active
in LDAP. We first need to add the LDAP attributes before we can add the
filter to
On Thursday 03 April 2008 14:55:43 Patrick Lauer wrote:
But if you don't trust anyone there is no reason why you would even
try to interact with Gentoo. So at some point you will have to decide
to arbitrarily trust a few entities, be it devs or servers or
cryptographic keys ...
Uh huh,
В Чтв, 03/04/2008 в 18:56 +0300, Petteri Räty пишет:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to
raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at least
one commit in
On 02-04-2008 21:21:25 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain
packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the
maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs? Devs who keep claiming
packages only to
On 01 Apr 2008 05:30:01
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I'd like initial comments from the Council on PMS please. We're
reaching
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
I agree with the above point.
Also, as I recall, both Pettery (betelgeuse) and Denis (calchan) have
stated before that we no longer have any queue of people waiting on
recruiters to join Gentoo. I'm not seeing an avalanche of new blood
Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
On 02-04-2008 21:21:25 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain
packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the
maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs? Devs who keep
Petteri Räty wrote:
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're
forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that
we have many different roles.
And you are assuming that undertakers
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:35:20 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where
people worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't
pose so many security risks. With the current practice of doing work
2008-04-03 13:35 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a):
Petteri Räty wrote:
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate
about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. Afterall, if
gentoo-x86
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:35:20 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where
people worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't
pose so many security risks. With the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
| Yeah, you only need access to one ebuild to do whatever you want to
| user's systems.
Perhaps then we should direct more of our efforts towards the GPG
package signing system, so that when a dev becomes a libability, their
keys
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:56:59 +0100
Mike Auty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
| Yeah, you only need access to one ebuild to do whatever you want to
| user's systems.
Perhaps then we should direct more of our efforts towards the GPG
package signing system, so that when a dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
|
I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys. Every package
would also be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
| It's about quality not quantity maybe?
It's about both, and getting the balance right is effectively what this
boils down to (as do many discussions on -dev). There's those devs who
want high levels of QA and those
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:51 +0100
Mike Auty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys. Every
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:51 +0100
Mike Auty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all
Mike Auty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
|
I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys. Every package
would also be signed, and would only be
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:29:10 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in
code that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets
invalidated.
By this reasoning you shouldn't use passwords ...
The idea is to limit the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:29:10 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in
code that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets
invalidated.
By this reasoning you shouldn't use passwords ...
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:44:45 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and then, from that design space, select the option(s) that have the
best behaviour. If you get bored you can read the not-yet-GLEPs
robbat2 has written with the help of a few others, which would cut
out a large part of
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:44:45 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and then, from that design space, select the option(s) that have the
best behaviour. If you get bored you can read the not-yet-GLEPs
robbat2 has written with the help of a few others, which
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:55:43 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh huh, which is what my original reply to Mike was all about.
We're way ahead of you here...
Or so you think.
So now that you've tried to label me as a dimwit we're past that
stage and can now return to
Mike Auty wrote:
So the still unanswered question appears to be, would we like Gentoo to
have fewer packages and less choice but greater QA, stability and a feel
of professionalism, or would we like to have more packages and choice
but a worse QA record, make some mistakes, and have a more
On 11:35 Thu 03 Apr , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
Petteri R??ty wrote:
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
Petteri R??ty wrote:
As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're
forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that we
have
If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.
Many things would be easier then. I'm all for switching to git.
--
Best regards, Wulf
pgpextitGtwiV.pgp
Description: PGP Digital Signature
Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
Chrissy Fullam kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about,
Petteri Räty wrote:
I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at least one
commit in last 60 days. We could of course just change the slacker script
to list the activity for everyone during the last 60 days and leave the
interpretation to undertakers.
Interesting
On 09:53 Thu 03 Apr , Thomas Anderson wrote:
On 11:35 Thu 03 Apr , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
Petteri R??ty wrote:
Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the
existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA
members? Are they
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 13:49 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.
True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where people
worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't pose so many
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 09:21 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
Regardless, as long as devs actually follow policy I don't see any need
to boot them. Maybe very long periods of inactivity should result in
having accounts locked as a security measure (so that we don't end up
with hundreds of ssh
On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?
It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.
--
Best regards, Wulf
signature.asc
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply
Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?
It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.
Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to
raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one
problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action
against
Mike Auty kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us
to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one
problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind
Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues
either. This means that you should have devaway on.
That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and
the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise to expect that
he
Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues
either.
I can see your point, I was more thinking about developers who have
maybe one or two small packages that don't have many version bumps or
bugs. They may be entirely able to respond to
Wulf C. Krueger kirjoitti:
On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?
It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.
I don't have
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues
either. This means that you should have devaway on.
So if you don't maintain enough packages to commit on average once a
week, you're not worth
Mike Auty kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security
issues either.
I can see your point, I was more thinking about developers who have
maybe one or two small packages that don't have many version bumps or
bugs. They may be entirely
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 22:19 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to
raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one
problem in
Jan Kundrát wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security
issues either. This means that you should have devaway on.
That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and
the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise
Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Auty kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us
to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one
problem in Donnie's informal
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
This is very
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- PMS:
- status update from spb
- moving it to Gentoo svn
- schedule for getting remaining issues settled
Same question as last time this came up:
Can you name any other projects where the Council
On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
rule at all concerning limitations to the council is tying our hands in
our back. If the council never
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:17:18 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Buisse wrote: [Wed Apr 04 2007, 02:36:43PM CDT]
I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council
power, since it seems there
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
Council meeting logs be
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 12:27:09PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sorry, due to the thread (things for Council to talk about), i thought the
work you were talking about was stuff for the Council to discuss ... that
seems to not be the case
Ah, sorry about that. As you said, right now there is
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
This is very little red tape IMHO.
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:09:12 Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
those meetings but even the topic.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
rule at all concerning limitations to the
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:19 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:09:12 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content
of those
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
on the next election.
Which is all very well, but it's kind of hard to evaluate the
effectiveness of Council
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
details can remain private if necessary, but publishing a brief summary
along the lines of we discussed x and y and decided z *has* to be
less harmful than the current mess where people are deleting their work
and considering
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:47:37 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, all this the Council is hiding something conspiracy theory
is bullshit.
Then why are certain Council members, you included, threatening to
remove other Council members' and Gentoo developers' access if logs of
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
log a secret...
The log contains information that was given to us in confidence. How
much
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
log a secret...
The log contains information that was given to us in
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:04 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
log a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
apparent decline of QA in our packages.
Anyone got numbers for that? Talking opinions, as in the SCM discussion,
isn't real meaningful.
Thanks,
Donnie
What metric would you use? the number of stages
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:04:09 -0700
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's how it appears to someone reading all this, though:
Ciaran *already knows* what's going on, which means that some
person(s) who *were* privy to those meetings have talked, plain and
simple. If that's true, then
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:24:06 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, from what I can gather, he only *thinks* he knows what was going
on and he's filled in the blanks himself with whatever ideas he's come
up with on his own. If he really does have the logs, he wouldn't be
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had mentioned earlier:
- a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:09 schrieb Wernfried Haas:
If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
on the next election.
Especially as there are council members who don't rely like any privacy
in that
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
Council meeting logs be made public
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had mentioned
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 21:20 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had mentioned
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 22:15 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:09 schrieb Wernfried Haas:
If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
on the next election.
Especially as there
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 21:20 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had
On 4/5/07, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just find this whole situation hysterical since you have so many
people saying the Council needs to grow a pair and actually try to
enact some good, and when we do, you hear a few vocal individuals
running around screaming like we killed
Ned Ludd kirjoitti:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:18:40PM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core
that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they
were ever going to be published publicly I would of never sent them.
As far i remember the idea
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:18:40PM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core
that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they
were ever going to be published publicly I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
some topics off the top of my head:
- unaddressed CoC issues:
- add a mission statement
- fix wording to have a positive spin
- what else ?
- sync Social Contract with Gentoo Foundation statement
Mike Doty wrote:
apparent decline of QA in our packages.
Anyone got numbers for that? Talking opinions, as in the SCM discussion,
isn't real meaningful.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:51:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
some topics off the top of my head:
- unaddressed CoC issues:
- add a mission statement
- fix wording to have a positive spin
- what else ?
We need quite a few more people on the CoC team. One reason being that
Since i tried to get things running for the last week or two, i need
to throw in my 2 cents here.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:51:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
some topics off the top of my head:
- unaddressed CoC issues:
On Wednesday 04 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
Since i tried to get things running for the last week or two, i need
to throw in my 2 cents here.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:51:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
-
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 05:55:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 04 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
Since i tried to get things running for the last week or two, i need
to throw in my 2 cents here.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
On Wed,
On Wednesday 04 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
I compiled a list of things that i think need to be done such as
defining some general guidelines for work, snip
sorry, due to the thread (things for Council to talk about), i thought the
work you were talking about was stuff for the Council to
On Sun, Apr 1, 2007 at 12:32:06 +0200, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1500 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe
Alexandre Buisse wrote: [Wed Apr 04 2007, 02:36:43PM CDT]
I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council power,
since it seems there is nothing to this effect in the metastructure
glep.
For what it's worth,
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council power,
since it seems there is nothing to this effect in the metastructure
glep.
I'm not going to write an essay because I don't have the
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
