On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 13:04:08 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 23:45:34 Dale wrote:
> > So, council says it has to be done. You say you won't. Tell me where I
> > missed the point here.
>
> you missed the point as soon as you incorrectly stated that i said i wont.
> thus
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 23:45:34 Dale wrote:
So, council says it has to be done. You say you won't. Tell me where I
missed the point here.
you missed the point as soon as you incorrectly stated that i said i wont.
thus the rest of your e-mail is useless noise
On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 13:40:49 Matt Turner wrote:
> and was 3 weeks later on Jun 7.
i havent had much time for Gentoo lately :/. but maybe people think that's
good so i'll stop being a hassle.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 05:27:27 Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> So you say that you want to follow the rules but accidentally forgot it?
>
> no idea what you're talking about. the new policy has 0 relevance to actions
> performed before said po
On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 05:27:27 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> So you say that you want to follow the rules but accidentally forgot it?
no idea what you're talking about. the new policy has 0 relevance to actions
performed before said policy went into effect.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 23:45:34 Dale wrote:
> So, council says it has to be done. You say you won't. Tell me where I
> missed the point here.
you missed the point as soon as you incorrectly stated that i said i wont.
thus the rest of your e-mail is useless noise.
-mike
signature.asc
Descr
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 23:44:49 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:45:03 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:36:59 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't ch
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> He didn't say he was going to defy council, rather, that he simply
> wouldn't be removing ebuilds /at/ /all/ until either the changelog is auto-
> generated (making the case moot) or the council changes policy.
>
> That means th
Dale posted on Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:45:34 -0500 as excerpted:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 19:41:20 Dale wrote:
>>
>>> I have a question or two. I don't care if you, or others, reply to
>>> this with a answer, just think on it. A policy, rule if you will, has
>>> been
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> IMO we should just make repoman commit update the ChangeLog.
>
> Then repoman commit should have a flag to leave out removals from
> ChangeLog entries so unlazy people can still leave the cruft out from them.
>
> Ref. http://bugs.gentoo.org/s
On 06/08/2011 12:28 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> In all cases I want one resource to look at, viewcvs is a horrible and
>> slow interface. So it does make sense to keep changelogs filled with
>> information - maybe automation is needed, I don't
On 06/08/11 11:43, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:28:47 +0200
> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer
>> wrote:
>>> In all cases I want one resource to look at, viewcvs is a horrible
>>> and slow interface. So it does make sense to keep changelogs f
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:28:47 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
> > In all cases I want one resource to look at, viewcvs is a horrible
> > and slow interface. So it does make sense to keep changelogs filled
> > with information - maybe automation i
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> In all cases I want one resource to look at, viewcvs is a horrible and
> slow interface. So it does make sense to keep changelogs filled with
> information - maybe automation is needed, I don't have a strong opinion
> either way. But don't make
@council: We need to discuss ways to improve the current policy. See below.
On 06/07/11 23:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
>> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
>> was this exact attitude. I don't like the curren
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 19:41:20 Dale wrote:
I have a question or two. I don't care if you, or others, reply to this
with a answer, just think on it. A policy, rule if you will, has been
decided on by the council. This after MUCH discussion on this list and
the cou
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:45:03 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:36:59 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the
> > > > current situation.
> > >
> > > of course it
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 19:41:20 Dale wrote:
> I have a question or two. I don't care if you, or others, reply to this
> with a answer, just think on it. A policy, rule if you will, has been
> decided on by the council. This after MUCH discussion on this list and
> the council hearing both sid
Mike Frysinger wrote:
seems we gauge things differently as i dont think it's that black& white,
although it probably is further in your white than in my black. further, i
dont believe people actually get useful information out of this, they just
think they do (perception vs reality). when an
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 18:08:17 Matt Turner wrote:
> There _was_ a policy before, but it was unclear about documenting
> version removals and arguably didn't require it, so after a few
> developers (you've been often mentioned as one of them) refused to
> document version removals in the changel
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
>> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fi
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:36:59 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
> > > situation.
> >
> > of course it does. it makes the current situation irrelevant.
>
> Does this mean
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
>> > situation.
>>
>> of course it does. it makes the current situation irrelevant.
>
> Does this mean we s
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
> > situation.
>
> of course it does. it makes the current situation irrelevant.
Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the work to
migrate the t
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:23:23 Dane Smith wrote:
> On 06/07/11 17:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
>> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
>> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
>> far too wide. However, if you go back
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said:
vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
Log:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/07/11 17:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
>> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
>> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
>> far t
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:14:05 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > waste of time. i simply wont bother removing old versions until
> > > changelogs start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.
>
> For the record, I support Dane's statement 10
On 06/07/2011 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said:
>>> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
>>>
>>> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>> Log:
>>> old
>>
>> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs
> On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
(...)
> > waste of time. i simply wont bother removing old versions until
> > changelogs start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.
For the record, I support Dane's statement 100%.
In addition, I would like to say that you're behaving pret
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
> council, it was because y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said:
>>> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
>>>
>>> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>> Log:
>>> old
>>
>> Please
On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said:
> > vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
> >
> > Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
> > Log:
> > old
>
> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
waste of time. i simply wont bother removing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/16/11 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>> This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
>> gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
>> policies
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:52:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
> > gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
> > policies which should go thro
On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
> gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
> policies which should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels
> like it worths pushing it so far.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:45:14PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> > (klondike) wrote:
> >> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> >> > Neither of those point
Alec Warner said:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> > (klondike) wrote:
> >> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> >> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, whic
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) wrote:
>> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
>> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
>> > to quickly conver
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
> > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
> > conclusiv
El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
> to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
> conclusive.
To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer
following the list) it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W dniu 16.05.2011 15:41, Mark Loeser pisze:
> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said:
>> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
>>
>> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>> Log:
>> old
>
> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 07:41, Mark Loeser wrote:
> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said:
>> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
>>
>> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>> Log:
>> old
>
> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
It would also seem manifests weren't regenerated. Don
"Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said:
> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
>
> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
> Log:
> old
Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/
It'd also be better to do this all as one commit
46 matches
Mail list logo
