On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:02:11 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
You're complaining about how somebody made a fix that they wouldn't
have had to make but for the commit you made without consulting with
them.
No,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:21:15 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild
in
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:02:11 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
You're complaining about how somebody made a fix that they wouldn't
have had to make but for the commit you made without consulting with
them.
No, I didn't do that commit at all and only a little complaining. This
is
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild in
question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision bump with
no clue as to why it was removed or why the revision bump was required:
You'd
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
Do not get me wrong, Patrick. You, as QA team member, can touch other's
packages without prior noticing, if fixing serious issues involved. But
with great power comes great responsibility. Please, use your power more
Rich Freeman wrote:
working out things 1:1 if possible
..
it is probably better to let Comrel do their job, rather than
having everybody bicker on the list.
Working out things 1:1 *on the list* is nice in that it adds transparency.
Of course, it is then also very easy for people to send
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:26:55 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
Log:
Bump
I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of
17.01.2015 03:56, Patrick Lauer пишет:
On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
Log:
Bump
2015-01-19 10:40 Jeroen Roovers napisał(a):
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:26:55 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
Log:
Bump
I
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:17:12 +0100
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
The broken libuv-1.2.1.ebuild was not disabling unwanted addition of
-g to CFLAGS. The fix for this problem affected installed files, so
revision bump was required.
Yes, and I was talking
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:21:15 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild
in question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision
bump with no
Patrick Lauer:
On Saturday 17 January 2015 17:25:15 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:
On Saturday 17 January 2015 17:25:15 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/17/2015 05:09 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:56:01 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick
Am Samstag, 17. Januar 2015, 01:56:01 schrieb Patrick Lauer:
On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:
Patrick Lauer:
On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
Log:
Bump
I expect people to ask
Patrick Lauer wrote:
Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality?
No.
Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself.
A review workflow isn't about bureaucracy, it's about review. :)
Now, review means different things to different people, and some will
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
Log:
Bump
I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages.
That includes QA team members.
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
Log:
Bump
I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages.
That includes QA team members.
Patrick Lauer:
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
Log:
Bump
I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages.
That includes QA
What now? There's nothing bad mood about that email and your
question is a deflection. Patrick, you're the one in the wrong
here. If there's a maintainer in the metadata.xml file it's polite to
touch base before changing the state of the package. The proper reply
was, Oh, sorry, next time
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:56:01 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer:
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
Patrick Lauer (patrick):
patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:
22 matches
Mail list logo
