On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:48:38AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old
versions sink all your time really stops progress to a dead halt.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. Keeping it around for
slower arches does NOT block progress. I have intimate knowledge with
what ACTUALLY happens when people pull this bullshit - and that is a
05.02.2014 09:41, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:28:28 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
I've drafted and thrown away so many replies to Tom in this thread.
What do you want to tell us about this thread?
Thanks for putting up with it, but it's a huge waste of your
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:41:58 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
Cause it seems that not everybody agrees with policy that we are
trying to make.
Because it's impossible to create a simple policy to solve complex
problems. It's a waste of time and it's going to break more than you
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:41:58 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
Maybe we should change our sentence about dropping last stable
keywords for slow arches ONLY if version, still marked stable for
them is seriously broken?
What does seriously broken mean? Maintainers will see that
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:58:59 +0100
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:41:58 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
Cause it seems that not everybody agrees with policy that we are
trying to make.
Because it's impossible to create a simple policy to solve
Against my better judgment...
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:52 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. Keeping it around for
slower arches does NOT block progress. I have intimate knowledge with
what ACTUALLY
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:58 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is insufficient?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/chart.cgi?category=-All-datefrom=dateto=label0=All%20Openline0=320name=320subcategory=-All-action=wrap
PS: As a bonus, here's a nice view of
I'm firmly with Steev and Matt in this thread as well as in at least
a few others where Tom has participated intensely.
Tom Wijsman wrote:
Thanks for putting up with it, but it's a huge waste of your time.
Why?
Because you seem to have a completely different mindset than
everybody else, and
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:55:59 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:58 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is
insufficient?
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
Against my better judgment...
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
There is more to it than that. Normally discussions can be good, but
when you try to talk to a brick wall, it's absolutely pointless.
QA team's decisions require more than a flip of a dime; it takes a
little more
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:50:57 +0100
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
There is more to it than that. Normally discussions can be good,
but when you try to talk to a brick wall, it's absolutely pointless.
QA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/05/2014 04:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
Against my better judgment...
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old
versions sink all your time really stops progress to a dead halt.
Your logic isn't flawed here, it's entirely missing. If version Y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/05/2014 07:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old
versions sink all your time really stops progress
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:03:09 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:50:57 +0100
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
There is more to it than that. Normally
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/05/2014 07:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies
That policy doesn't permit removal of keywords/ebuilds without following
gentoo standard policy,
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:00:41 -0500
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can this be proven? Why are maintainers like WilliamH upset about
this?
Reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90063
I've already voiced my concern on his bug:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why is this pure and utter bullshit?
Because I'm attempting to have a discussion with a brick wall.
I hit that problem immediately in another sub-thread. Are we on to
something here?
Regards,
jer
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:50:07 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, I realize I'm repeating myself, but the purpose of the mailing
list isn't to keep reposting the same arguments back and forth until
everybody agrees. Post your argument once, and once it gets dull by
all means appeal
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 03:12:54 +0100
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why is this pure and utter bullshit?
Because I'm attempting to have a discussion with a brick wall.
I hit that problem immediately
why cant there be a second repository for all old source, ebuilds, and
patches and the stable and testing repository can be rolling like it
already is. slower archs can then sync the old repository and the new one.
On Feb 5, 2014 5:54 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 19:04:56 -0800
Tyler Pohl tylerap...@gmail.com wrote:
why cant there be a second repository for all old source, ebuilds, and
patches and the stable and testing repository can be rolling like it
already is. slower archs can then sync the old repository and the
new one.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/05/2014 09:50 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:50:07 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org
wrote:
So, I realize I'm repeating myself, but the purpose of the
mailing list isn't to keep reposting the same arguments back and
forth
Tom Wijsman wrote:
Steven J. Long wrote:
Closing those bugs as WONTFIX is more work, and in some cases the bugs
would be justified, if the user is on the slow arch in question.
They are less work; since it lets the slower arches move their work to
bugs of important packages that need
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:03:20 +
Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
Tom Wijsman wrote:
They are less work; since it lets the slower arches move their work
to bugs of important packages that need their attention, instead of
bugs of non-important packages were the
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs. [1]
You can keep rehashing about winning, but all it does is break policy.
[1]:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:23:28 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs. [1]
You can keep rehashing about
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:07 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:23:28 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
which are not worth trying to
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having
something working we should just remove ebuilds of working packages.
s/should/could/ s/ebuilds/stable keyword or last stable version/
It is at the
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having
something working we should just remove ebuilds of working packages.
s/should/could/
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having
something working
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:28:28 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
I've drafted and thrown away so many replies to Tom in this thread.
What do you want to tell us about this thread?
Thanks for putting up with it, but it's a huge waste of your time.
Why? This discussion has a goal which
36 matches
Mail list logo
