Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 01/04/2017 08:09 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 04/01/17 12:57, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> [...] >>> Another question: do we steel need to set STABLEREQ keyword for >>> stabilization bugs? Since we now have a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 04/01/17 07:09, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 04/01/17 12:57, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> [...] >>> Another question: do we steel need to set STABLEREQ keyword for >>> stabilization bugs? Since we now have a dedicated

[gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 04/01/17 12:57, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Hi all, > > On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > [...] >> Another question: do we steel need to set STABLEREQ keyword for >> stabilization bugs? Since we now have a dedicated Stabilization >> component, STABLEREQ looks

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > In that, by making the submitter resolve it all, its either "good" or "bad" > > Instead of leaving the person doing the testing in a confused state about > which packages > are expected to be used. > Well, assuming that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:49:59 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > However, in this case why would we want to rule out sets, "and all the > other shenanigans?" We've already established that a single stable > request bug can apply to multiple package-versions, so why not allow > full

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

Ühel kenal päeval, E, 02.01.2017 kell 14:01, kirjutas Rich Freeman: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, M. J. Everitt > wrote: > > > > On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric > > > wrote: > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 + >>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 05:56:56 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 + > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without > > an associated category atoms? > > If I use the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 + >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> >>> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 + > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an >> associated category atoms? > > Sets /are/ still

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 02/01/17 16:51, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:11:43 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long >> for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"? >> >> Ulrich > Reading "man 5 ebuild" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 + Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an > associated category atoms? If I use the content of man 5 ebuild as a guide, I'd say no, sets can't be atoms. Because sets can't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:11:43 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long > for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"? > > Ulrich Reading "man 5 ebuild" Atom Bases The base atom is just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

Ühel kenal päeval, N, 29.12.2016 kell 20:51, kirjutas Marc Schiffbauer: > * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 29.12.16 um 16:52 Uhr: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd prefer "package versions" but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

* Ciaran McCreesh schrieb am 29.12.16 um 18:23 Uhr: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:12 +0100 > Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > "atom" is a well defined term in the gentoo world, so why not use it? > > Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an > associated

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

* Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 29.12.16 um 16:52 Uhr: > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > > I'd prefer "package versions" but the people will come up with > > "sys-apps/eix-1.2.3" or just "1.2.3", not the desired > > "=sys-apps/eix-1.2.3". > > Why would the equals sign be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:12 +0100 Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > "atom" is a well defined term in the gentoo world, so why not use it? Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an associated category atoms? -- Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:44:12 +0100 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:31:19 + > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > We made a deliberate decision not to use the word "atom" in PMS > > because it means subtly different things in different

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > I'd prefer "package versions" but the people will come up with > "sys-apps/eix-1.2.3" or just "1.2.3", not the desired > "=sys-apps/eix-1.2.3". Why would the equals sign be needed there? Ulrich pgpPFAUVWZSRj.pgp Description: PGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:31:19 + Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > We made a deliberate decision not to use the word "atom" in PMS > because it means subtly different things in different contexts. You're doing it again! You're not citing any decisions on actual mailing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

* Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 29.12.16 um 13:08 Uhr: > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > >> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be > >> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both > >> components. > > > ago suggested "Packages list" or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 12/29/2016 01:08 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote: > >>> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be >>> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both >>> components. > >> ago suggested "Packages list" or "Package

[gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be >> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both >> components. > ago suggested "Packages list" or "Package list" - thoughts? Isn't it rather a list of "ebuilds" or

[gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 29/12/16 03:49, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: >> >>> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and >>> the support of the wg-stable, for the stabilization process, some >>> changes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > How about "atoms". We've been using that for ages (regardless of > what PMS authors think) so why change it now? The best definition I could find for "atom" is in ebuild(5): A depend atom is simply a dependency that is used by portage when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 23:21:51 +0100 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100 > Michael Palimaka wrote: > > > Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we > > > are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100 Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we > > are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't > > define the term [2]. > > Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally

[gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we >> are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't >> define the term [2]. > Any suggestions for improved text?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100 Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > > >> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and > >> the support of the wg-stable,

[gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > >> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and >> the support of the wg-stable, for the stabilization process, some >> changes on our bugzilla have been done. > > Thank you for