Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-11 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 10/03/13 20:04, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote: If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users could've reported some issues, i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-10 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote: If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users could've reported some issues, i agree that sometimes you have to ignore

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-10 Thread hasufell
On 03/10/2013 07:04 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote: If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users could've reported some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-10 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/10/2013 02:11 PM, hasufell wrote: On 03/10/2013 07:04 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote: If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into testing, and as you said there was no previous version on

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-10 Thread Duncan
hasufell posted on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:11:52 +0100 as excerpted: I was told a while back (I might still have it in irc logs), that 30 days is NOT a rule. It's common sense, but in the end the maintainer decides when to request stabilization, no one else. I can confirm the 30-day-guideline

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-04 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Montag, 4. März 2013, 03:19:17 schrieb Peter Stuge: Again, I guess you have to make Mike go away now. I never said that so please just stop it. You threatened to preempt me if I wanted to become a developer and found his practise OK - meaning that the behavior is unacceptable. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-04 Thread Peter Stuge
Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Starting as a developer or aspiring to become one with that attitude is not acceptable. That doesn't make sense to me. If the reason is good, surely it does not matter who is doing the breaking? //Peter pgpvkacjjiVYz.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-04 Thread Alec Warner
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Starting as a developer or aspiring to become one with that attitude is not acceptable. That doesn't make sense to me. If the reason is good, surely it does not matter who is doing the breaking?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-03 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mar 3, 2013 2:42 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Markos Chandras wrote: it just feels strange I hear they call it getting stuff done.. //Peter good thing you are not a dev then. Thanks for the heads up in case you ever want to become one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-03 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users could've reported some issues, i agree that sometimes you have to ignore the rules to really fix stable, but was this such case for sure? Dne 3.3.2013 3:43

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-03 Thread Peter Stuge
Markos Chandras wrote: it just feels strange I hear they call it getting stuff done.. good thing you are not a dev then. Thanks for the heads up in case you ever want to become one I explain to you what happened and you, a recruiter, proceed to threaten me in case I want to become a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-03 Thread Markos Chandras
On 3 March 2013 12:01, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Markos Chandras wrote: it just feels strange I hear they call it getting stuff done.. good thing you are not a dev then. Thanks for the heads up in case you ever want to become one I explain to you what happened getting stuff

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-03 Thread Peter Stuge
Markos Chandras wrote: I explain to you what happened getting stuff done is not an answer. I still don't understand why stable keywords had to be added directly. Do you understand why Mike did that or just playing smart here? To me it's obvious that he did it because it made something

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: To me it's obvious that he did it because it made something easier for him. By breaking the Gentoo rule he got something done. Rules exist for a reason. If we're bending them because we're accomplishing the goal of the rules in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-03 Thread Markos Chandras
On 3 March 2013 12:38, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Markos Chandras wrote: I explain to you what happened getting stuff done is not an answer. I still don't understand why stable keywords had to be added directly. Do you understand why Mike did that or just playing smart here? To me

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-03 Thread Peter Stuge
Markos Chandras wrote: getting stuff done is not an answer. it made something easier for him I asked why he did it, and you keep telling me because he had to. I'm guessing that it didn't have much to do with Gentoo. Maybe he'll fill in. I am reviewing commits from time to time

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 01 March 2013 07:45:28 Markos Chandras wrote: On 1 March 2013 08:16, Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org wrote: vapier 13/03/01 08:16:02 Modified: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog Log: Add arm lovin. --- confuse-2.7.ebuild 30 Oct 2012 11:18:49

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mar 3, 2013 1:43 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Friday 01 March 2013 07:45:28 Markos Chandras wrote: On 1 March 2013 08:16, Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org wrote: vapier 13/03/01 08:16:02 Modified: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog Log:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 02 March 2013 20:50:17 Markos Chandras wrote: On Mar 3, 2013 1:43 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Friday 01 March 2013 07:45:28 Markos Chandras wrote: On 1 March 2013 08:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: vapier 13/03/01 08:16:02 Modified:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mar 3, 2013 1:55 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Saturday 02 March 2013 20:50:17 Markos Chandras wrote: On Mar 3, 2013 1:43 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Friday 01 March 2013 07:45:28 Markos Chandras wrote: On 1 March 2013 08:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Peter Stuge
Markos Chandras wrote: it just feels strange I hear they call it getting stuff done.. //Peter

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 02 March 2013 21:01:39 Markos Chandras wrote: On Mar 3, 2013 1:55 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: complain to me when all these arm systems that totally had confuse already installed go down in fire. it literally makes 0 difference here. Why would they have it

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-01 Thread Markos Chandras
On 1 March 2013 08:16, Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org wrote: vapier 13/03/01 08:16:02 Modified: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog Log: Add arm lovin. (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha163/cvs/Linux x86_64, signed Manifest commit with key FB7C4156) Revision