[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
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 Gentoo dev list to see. Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On 01 May 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 a decision on the eight digits thing in PMS: No integer part of a version specification may contain more than eight digits. It's been discussed on this list previously: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_db2f5c09c2c0c8b042ca3d0dcec7cdaf.xml and on bugzilla: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188449 and I get the impression that there aren't any particularly strong feelings either way. So can we get a Council ruling to either kill the limit and strongly encourage people to fix their code, or keep the limit and start enforcing it and fixing it in the tree via repoman etc? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
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 Gentoo dev list to see. Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
(I'll Try again, from correct email address) On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 05:30 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: 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 Gentoo dev list to see. Just to summarize, for purposes of informing everyone of something I've already requested. Recently we retired 3 developers, the devrel project was not involved as a group except for the lead, and apparently the developers did not know anyone was looking at complaints filed against them. I'd like Council (1) to explain its role in this, if any, (2) explain why it permits such actions in apparent violation of Gentoo's policy of openness, (3) and since there seems to be some confusion (on my part at least) how to interpret Council's role in any appeal IF (I don't really know) Council played a part in the disciplinary action, please amend Council's enabling document GLEP 39 to explain how Council handles appeals and whether or not Council can take or direct disciplinary action in light of this absolute requirement. Since this is a general mailing list and some of you might not know what I'm talking about, this is GLEP 39 and as such it helps define Gentoo policy and procedure. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On N, 2008-05-01 at 05:30 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: 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 Gentoo dev list to see. I would like to see the council to chat about two points, which are the following: 1) ChangeLog entries and when one is a must-have. This especially in relation to arch stabilizations. 2) The situation of keywording, stabilization or other bugs being completely ignored by the arm, sh and s390 teams. Can something be done to help in resolving this? Stabilizations do happen, but ignoring the bugs, and whenever they are felt to be done, and no un-CC-ing happens - usually with a 1 to 5 months of delay. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. José Luis Rivero (yoswink) wrote: Roy Marples wrote: I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member, but not part of the games team/herd. One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That means our users need the game right away. Thanks for the example, trust me if I tell you that we can understand the situation pretty well. I used to commit EL straight to stable for this very reason, but now after a few Gentoo QA people bitched EL will never ever have a stable keyword. I'm nearly sure that you always (at least) compile and run the new version in your box before you sent it to stable, didn't you? So, at least, you are able to say that it works in your case. So instead I periodically have to let our users know how to unmask EL just so they can play their game. There are always ways to educate users about how to use portage properly. So no, in many cases NOT committing straight to stable CAN be detrimental to our users if all they want is a games machine. You could argue that they shouldn't be using Gentoo, but I would argue why should we discriminate? Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different to Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo). Agreed. All Gentoo beryl users need to use ~arch. I don't think games are so special that we must provide them on stable arch. Afertall, if games are keyworded testing, users can add them to /etc/portage/packaage.keywords if they run a stable system. This is how I see it: Problem with keywording straight to stable is that arch teams are very zealous about our stable branch. We put a lot of time trying things to not fail in stable, and if an app is broken, we prefer to not force the users to compile and install another broken (or unknown to be broken) version and work to fix the current stable (patches or bumping) together with the maintainer. But if you send things, that you can't try, to stable, the qa baby jesus will cry if it fails, because nobody has taken care of even compile it in the arch :) Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those el1te gam3rs. Thanks. I also don't agree with having an exception for the games herd. As others have questioned, how are games more important than security bumps? If we were considering exceptions, I would argue that allowing the security team to mark packages as stable would make a lot more sense, imho. Anyway, the important point here for the council meeting is whether our keywording policy is to be enforced or not, regardless of herd, or if / how we want to have exceptions. DISCLAIMER: I have no problems with games. I do like to play some, but I see no problem with using package.keywords. - -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo-forums / Userrel / Proctors -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGOxXWcAWygvVEyAIRAgv5AJ9k5N/7Uri+rFCxOZllSp2NwmB67gCfepe3 A1Yj3pwuAI3oo/TODP7N79E= =UYbe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Friday 04 May 2007, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: I also don't agree with having an exception for the games herd. As others have questioned, how are games more important than security bumps? If we were considering exceptions, I would argue that allowing the security team to mark packages as stable would make a lot more sense, imho. A quick 2c here from the peanut gallery: Just leave the affected games always keyworded ~arch. The users of games are generally pretty savvy and they know how portage works. You might even find the majority of games players run ~arch boxes anyway so they will never notice that the game ebuild is not in stable alan -- Optimists say the glass is half full, Pessimists say the glass is half empty, Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be? Alan McKinnon alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za +27 82, double three seven, one nine three five -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Friday 04 May 2007, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: I also don't agree with having an exception for the games herd. As others have questioned, how are games more important than security bumps? If we were considering exceptions, I would argue that allowing the security team to mark packages as stable would make a lot more sense, imho. There has never been an exception for games. There is however, no one willing to beat games herd (and others) with a stick sufficiently often that they stop. I don't even see how this is a policy discussion at all as the policy is more or less clear to me; is it unclear for others? This is an enforcement problem, no? -Alec -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 12:15 +0200, José Luis Rivero (yoswink) wrote: Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those el1te gam3rs. We actively discourage users from using ~arch for stable, since it is, well, more stable. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 08:53 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: I don't even see how this is a policy discussion at all as the policy is more or less clear to me; is it unclear for others? This is an enforcement problem, no? No. It *was* an enforcement problem. The problem has been resolved already. There's really no need for the Council to speak on this. Keyword policy applies to everyone. In the cases of certain games, such as Eternal Lands (thanks Roy!), we can make exceptions simply because of the necessity. That being said, there's nothing stopping games (or any maintainer) from filing a stabilization bug *immediately* after putting a package in the tree. I've done it on games a few times and I've seen it done on things like portage when a necessary fix needed to go out as quickly as possible. The point of policy is *not* to impede progress. It is supposed to be to provide our users the best quality distribution. If policy gets in the way of progress without gain for our users, then the policy needs to be revisited. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
Lol, its funny that we must concern ourselves with the needs of el1te gam3rs, but I suppose its necessary. Karl Haines -Original Message- From: Chris Gianelloni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 2:13 PM To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 12:15 +0200, José Luis Rivero (yoswink) wrote: Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those el1te gam3rs. We actively discourage users from using ~arch for stable, since it is, well, more stable. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Fri, 04 May 2007 15:36:51 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point of policy is *not* to impede progress. It is supposed to be to provide our users the best quality distribution. If policy gets in the way of progress without gain for our users, then the policy needs to be revisited. And the point of enforcing policy and escalating problems is to prevent rogue developers from breaking stable, screwing over users' systems and then repeatedly refusing to show any sign that they've learned from that and lots of other mistakes. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 20:43 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2007 15:36:51 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point of policy is *not* to impede progress. It is supposed to be to provide our users the best quality distribution. If policy gets in the way of progress without gain for our users, then the policy needs to be revisited. And the point of enforcing policy and escalating problems is to prevent rogue developers from breaking stable, screwing over users' systems and then repeatedly refusing to show any sign that they've learned from that and lots of other mistakes. What does enforcement have to do with the Council? The Council approves/enacts policy. We don't do enforcement. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Fri, 4 May 2007 14:37:21 -0500 Karl Haines [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lol, its funny that we must concern ourselves with the needs of el1te gam3rs, but I suppose its necessary. We concern ourselves with the needs of everyone, from our elite users, to our crapola devs. There are, or should, be no favourites. Hi Mom :D Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Wed, 2 May 2007 22:00:05 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What, people deliberately breaking policy that directly leads to breaking stable and not having any working ebuilds for a package in the tree, and then refusing to do anything about it is nothing? the issue has been taken care of You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council members who aren't games team members think? [to the detriment of users] How is not having broken packages committed straight to stable detrimental to users? I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member, but not part of the games team/herd. One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That means our users need the game right away. I used to commit EL straight to stable for this very reason, but now after a few Gentoo QA people bitched EL will never ever have a stable keyword. So instead I periodically have to let our users know how to unmask EL just so they can play their game. So no, in many cases NOT committing straight to stable CAN be detrimental to our users if all they want is a games machine. You could argue that they shouldn't be using Gentoo, but I would argue why should we discriminate? Thanks Roy DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Thursday 03 May 2007, Roy Marples wrote: DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass. there's nothing of value in said bug so having not read it is OK -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
Roy Marples wrote: I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member, but not part of the games team/herd. One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That means our users need the game right away. Thanks for the example, trust me if I tell you that we can understand the situation pretty well. I used to commit EL straight to stable for this very reason, but now after a few Gentoo QA people bitched EL will never ever have a stable keyword. I'm nearly sure that you always (at least) compile and run the new version in your box before you sent it to stable, didn't you? So, at least, you are able to say that it works in your case. So instead I periodically have to let our users know how to unmask EL just so they can play their game. There are always ways to educate users about how to use portage properly. So no, in many cases NOT committing straight to stable CAN be detrimental to our users if all they want is a games machine. You could argue that they shouldn't be using Gentoo, but I would argue why should we discriminate? Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different to Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo). This is how I see it: Problem with keywording straight to stable is that arch teams are very zealous about our stable branch. We put a lot of time trying things to not fail in stable, and if an app is broken, we prefer to not force the users to compile and install another broken (or unknown to be broken) version and work to fix the current stable (patches or bumping) together with the maintainer. But if you send things, that you can't try, to stable, the qa baby jesus will cry if it fails, because nobody has taken care of even compile it in the arch :) Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those el1te gam3rs. Thanks. -- Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:15:45 +0200 José Luis Rivero (yoswink) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different to Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo). No no no. In my example we can only use one version of the game with the upstream servers. There is only 1 upstream server, we have to use it. So if it supports 6 archs and some of the arch teams take a few months to mark it stable then the chances are it will be out of date anyway and the slacker arches will never have a stable keyword. So remove the onus on slacker arches making games stable I just don't bother with the stable keyword for network games ever. Gnome-2.18 on the other hand is a desktop product with zero upstream interaction except with programs that have clearly defined protocols and are normally backwards compatible. Like say HTTP This is how I see it: Problem with keywording straight to stable is that arch teams are very zealous about our stable branch. We put a lot of time trying things to not fail in stable, and if an app is broken, we prefer to not force the users to compile and install another broken (or unknown to be broken) version and work to fix the current stable (patches or bumping) together with the maintainer. Right, but if stable client version != stable usptream server version it cannot be used anyway, making the stable keyword here a bit of a joke. But if you send things, that you can't try, to stable, the qa baby jesus will cry if it fails, because nobody has taken care of even compile it in the arch :) Well, that's up to the arch teams I guess. Lots of things fail randomly on g/fbsd because of a patch added to fix a linux bug. Maybe when we g/fbsd gets a stable branch then we'll come down on the linux developers like a ton of bricks :) Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 08:11 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2007 22:00:05 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What, people deliberately breaking policy that directly leads to breaking stable and not having any working ebuilds for a package in the tree, and then refusing to do anything about it is nothing? the issue has been taken care of You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council members who aren't games team members think? [to the detriment of users] How is not having broken packages committed straight to stable detrimental to users? I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member, but not part of the games team/herd. One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That means our users need the game right away. ok, agreed, this is a valid point. so i would suggest, that maintainers of games where this argument applies, come to special agreements with the arch teams - or just file bugreports like this: although games-foo/lord-of-bar-2.4.6 has just been bumped, i would like to have it stable real soon, as upstream has changed the network protocol. i have x86 and amd64 hardware available, and can confirm, that the game works nice there; so, if no one objects, i'm gonna mark lord-of-bar-2.4.6 stable on x86 and amd64 in two days. i would also like to have a shiny sparc keyword, but have no hardware to test. so it would be highly appreciated if someone from the sparc team can give the game a try. but committing straight to stable on arches where the package wasn't even tested is an absolute no-do for me. DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass. no, in fact you are the first one that comes up with a valid argument, why games sometimes should go to stable almost immediately. sad, but true... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
Roy Marples escribió: On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:15:45 +0200 José Luis Rivero (yoswink) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different to Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo). No no no. In my example we can only use one version of the game with the upstream servers. There is only 1 upstream server, we have to use it. Excuse me, Roy. I didn't get the point. Only one upstream server seems to make things much stricter and sounds quite reasonable to me the both ways you have used to handle it. IMHO, this is a good case where I'm sure arch teams could be happy to make an exception to the general rule. BTW, I think this is completely different to the situation being discussed. Thanks. -- Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 13:11 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote: ok, agreed, this is a valid point. so i would suggest, that maintainers of games where this argument applies, come to special agreements with the arch teams - or just file bugreports like this: although games-foo/lord-of-bar-2.4.6 has just been bumped, i would like to have it stable real soon, as upstream has changed the network protocol. i have x86 and amd64 hardware available, and can confirm, that the game works nice there; so, if no one objects, i'm gonna mark lord-of-bar-2.4.6 stable on x86 and amd64 in two days. i would also like to have a shiny sparc keyword, but have no hardware to test. so it would be highly appreciated if someone from the sparc team can give the game a try. I can't speak for all of sparc, of course, but generally we try to accommodate requests when the package developers explain the situation. In a case like Eternal Lands, it might turn out that the best solution would be always to keep it as ~sparc, but that would have the same effect in practice as a stable keyword, because anyone playing the game on sparc would know what was going on (I would think). The key here is the bug report, and at that point the friendly sparc developers would work with you. :) but committing straight to stable on arches where the package wasn't even tested is an absolute no-do for me. DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass. no, in fact you are the first one that comes up with a valid argument, why games sometimes should go to stable almost immediately. sad, but true... Regards, -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Tuesday 01 May 2007, Petteri Räty wrote: Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: 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 remind everyone that this is not appropriate for any team doesnt take much to get people in a hissy over nothing the issue has been taken care of [to the detriment of users] -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Wed, 2 May 2007 16:49:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 01 May 2007, Petteri Räty wrote: Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: 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 remind everyone that this is not appropriate for any team doesnt take much to get people in a hissy over nothing What, people deliberately breaking policy that directly leads to breaking stable and not having any working ebuilds for a package in the tree, and then refusing to do anything about it is nothing? the issue has been taken care of You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council members who aren't games team members think? [to the detriment of users] How is not having broken packages committed straight to stable detrimental to users? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Wednesday 02 May 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: the issue has been taken care of You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council members who aren't games team members think? perhaps you should try reading the bug -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
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 Gentoo dev list to see. Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: 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 remind everyone that this is not appropriate for any team: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176256#c4 Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
Petteri Räty wrote: Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: 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 remind everyone that this is not appropriate for any team: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176256#c4 The alpha arch team is *fully* agree with sparc in this case (as many others) and hope the council make a clear statement against this kind of keywording, which we think can create many more problems than solutions. We *really* appreciate the great job doing by our games herd (one of the best out there) but, in this case, this is not the way to follow. Thanks. -- Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the 2nd Thursday once a month), 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 Gentoo dev list to see. Keep in mind that every *re*submission to the council for review must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
On Sunday 07 May 2006 15:31, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your monthly friendly reminder ! sorry for the delay ... the mail server changes broke a bunch of my automated scripts :/ -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 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 GLEP 48 [1] to be voted on. Thanks, [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html -- Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ http://www.halcy0n.com pgp7vJhlFQUYZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
