On Monday 13 June 2005 23:58, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Hrm, this is making me wonder if a combined alias for new ebuilds and
> ebuilds that need maintainers could be used. The current alias as
> new-ebuilds probably wouldn't fit this as well. If seemant is up for it,
> we could just use something l
Lance Albertson wrote:
> Hrm, this is making me wonder if a combined alias for new ebuilds and
> ebuilds that need maintainers could be used. The current alias as
> new-ebuilds probably wouldn't fit this as well. If seemant is up for it,
> we could just use something like need-maintainers or someth
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 20:49 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > I think its better to leave the package on the right alias, because its
> > easier
> > to find all pkges without maintainer for a certain herd then.
> > Most of the people will want to start with only one herd to
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> I think its better to leave the package on the right alias, because its
> easier
> to find all pkges without maintainer for a certain herd then.
> Most of the people will want to start with only one herd to get ebuilds
> added,
> so it imo makes really sense to leave t
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:04:42PM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> > I like the concept but I think that a previous suggestion that was discussed
> > here was better. The suggestion was to create a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > alias which bugs could be assigned to. The discussion was a while ago but I
> >
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 18:17 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Markus Nigbur wrote:
> > Anyway, as I've already said I'm the _currently_ the only active herd
> > member and simply cannot take the responsibility of about 100 new
> > packages.
> > Therefor I suggest introducing a new keyword to bugzilla's
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:31:58PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Reassigning to need-maintainer@ would remove the herd-information and
> therefore I am against it.
Ok, so what about adding it to the CC then?
--
Maurice van der Pot
Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ge
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:15:13PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> I think it logically fits better into having its own assignee. Most
> resolutions suggest that no further action is needed, I don't think this is
> the case here (remember we are talking about RESOLVED NEEDMAINTAINER...)
I guess I've
Am Montag 13 Juni 2005 20:15 schrieb Daniel Drake:
> Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> > Do you have a date or thread subject or something like that? I can't
> > find it in the archives. I would like to see some reasons why one or the
> > other is better.
>
> I can't remember and I can't see it in the a
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> Do you have a date or thread subject or something like that? I can't
> find it in the archives. I would like to see some reasons why one or the
> other is better.
I can't remember and I can't see it in the archives. Maybe I was dreaming...
I think it logically fits be
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:17:12PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> I like the concept but I think that a previous suggestion that was discussed
> here was better. The suggestion was to create a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> alias which bugs could be assigned to. The discussion was a while ago but I
> don't reca
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
>
> I definitely would like to see this. Just a few days ago I was
> considering adding a comment along the lines of "we need a maintainer
> for this package, that's why nothing is happening" to some bug reports.
> NEEDMAINTAINER is clearly a neater solution.
>
> *Thumb
Markus Nigbur wrote:
> Anyway, as I've already said I'm the _currently_ the only active herd
> member and simply cannot take the responsibility of about 100 new
> packages.
> Therefor I suggest introducing a new keyword to bugzilla's resolution
> list, called NEEDMAINTAINER.
> With this new keyword
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:36:09 +0200
Maurice van der Pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I definitely would like to see this. Just a few days ago I was
> considering adding a comment along the lines of "we need a maintainer
> for this package, that's why nothing is happening" to some bug reports.
> NEE
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 04:35:27AM +0200, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> Therefor I suggest introducing a new keyword to bugzilla's resolution
> list, called NEEDMAINTAINER.
> With this new keyword everyone could compile a list of currently
> unmaintained packages and just take the ones he likes. Additiona
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 05:33:01 -0400
"Luis F. Araujo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like this idea.
> I actually proposed a similar idea time ago in #-dev , but
> instead of doing it from bugzilla, to do it from the web site, (i like
> yours better)
> the main idea is to have a list of unmantained
Markus Nigbur wrote:
>Hi gang,
>
>I just (again) noticed I'm currently the only active developer of the
>desktop-misc herd, which is going to change as soon as the recruitment
>process is reopened again.
>About 80% of all bugs assigned to desktop-misc are new ebuild
>submissions for software which
Hi gang,
I just (again) noticed I'm currently the only active developer of the
desktop-misc herd, which is going to change as soon as the recruitment
process is reopened again.
About 80% of all bugs assigned to desktop-misc are new ebuild
submissions for software which either falls into no other g
18 matches
Mail list logo
