Richard Fish wrote:
I suppose that there is a way that Gentoo can follow, only that its leaders,
developers and users need to see it clearly. Is there a publicly visible
page that contains current goals for new releases? Where all sub-project
leaders could add their own goals, coherent
Simon Stelling wrote:
Edgar Hucek wrote:
I know my tools but not necessarly the normal user who wanna use gentoo
and is ending frustrated.
If the users are too lazy to read the documentation, why should we care
about them?
Because we risk that Gentoo may receive the user-UN-friendly
Alec Warner wrote:
needs as far as QA. Last year Halcy0n petitioned for power for the QA
team; it was quite like a ball crushing power (fix it or we will) and it
seemed to have all kinds of frictional issues. This being a global
issue I would like to hear thoughts on how this could be done
triggered by bug #77751: hspell lists a non-gentoo.org address for
the maintainer email, the herd as maintainer-needed, and no other
addresses.
Is this sort of thing now ok?
I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
tree without taking responsibility for it. I would
On Sunday 03 September 2006 11:20, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
triggered by bug #77751: hspell lists a non-gentoo.org address for
the maintainer email, the herd as maintainer-needed, and no other
addresses.
Is this sort of thing now ok?
No.
Carsten
pgpLh7ZV4WbmG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Richard Fish wrote:
On 9/2/06, Wiktor Wandachowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose that there is a way that Gentoo can follow, only that its
leaders,
developers and users need to see it clearly. Is there a publicly visible
page that contains current goals for new releases? Where all
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Edgar Hucek wrote:
I know my tools but not necessarly the normal user who wanna use gentoo
and is ending frustrated.
If the users are too lazy to read the documentation, why should we care
about them?
Because we risk that Gentoo may receive
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
If neither of those points are convincing enough, then remember free
software comes with *NO-WARRANTY*
s/free//
Even payware is w/out warranties.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
Either MTA or MUA brokeness. Another email I have to send a second time. :(
On Sunday 03 September 2006 00:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
And waiting other 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months won't change the thing. Why? Because
we have _no_ accessibility team right now.
Well, the bug is assigned to
On Sunday 03 September 2006 00:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
And waiting other 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months won't change the thing. Why? Because
we have _no_ accessibility team right now.
Well, the bug is assigned to williamh, who is not /completely/ inactive. I
wonder, if only 37 commits in
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:57:10 +0200
Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
tree without taking responsibility for it.
sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I
cannot test
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:57:10PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
tree without taking responsibility for it.
sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I cannot test
the thing.
On Sunday 03 September 2006 13:57, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
tree without taking responsibility for it.
sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I cannot
test the thing.
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 00:31 +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
We'll also need to sort out a process for handling complaints against
developers from the folks they help. Doesn't matter how well we make
it clear that these folks are independent; their actions
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Then you should not have committed it - as a dev it is your
responsibility to test any ebuilds your commit. There's nothing
stopping you doing the normal checks on the ebuild, even if you can't
read Hebrew. For example you should verify whether the '-j1' is really
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And no one has implemented any kind of solution.
You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for
folks to actually make an announcement in the first place?
I asked for what has become GLEP 42 because we do have a problem
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And no one has implemented any kind of solution.
You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for
folks to actually make an announcement in the first place?
I asked for what has become GLEP 42
Bryan Ãstergaard wrote:
Ok, let me see if I can get this straight.. You're saying that
maintainer-needed requires less communication overhead compared to
ebuilds with maintainers assigned? And that maintainer-needed is
therefore better than ebuilds having maintainers.
agreed. I prefer to fix
It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or howcan it happen that there are already know bugs in thestable distro ?Just like to make the point that if something requires a dependency in ~arch (unstable), then it isn't/shouldn't be in arch (stable).
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 10:36 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And no one has implemented any kind of solution.
You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for
folks to actually make an announcement in
Jeff Rollin wrote:
It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or how
can it happen that there are already know bugs in the
stable distro ?
Just like to make the point that if something requires a dependency in
~arch (unstable), then it isn't/shouldn't be in arch (stable).
Because the
I asked each member of the portage team (minus Marius, whom I did find
on irc) what they were up to in terms of working on things. Zac
informed me that 2.1.1 would be out of rc status on the 8th and that
users could expect a few new features and many bugfixes.
From the NEWS file in svn:
*
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:23:31 -0400:
The gcc-4.1 stabilization bug has been open for a month and a half.
Thats fairly good notice...
Only to the folks who knew about that bug. For the wider community
... it's not
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the thought that stable is always stable or that because we
released things are stable is incorrect ;)
You're not supposed to break the stable tree; that surely must include
stabilising a compiler (which is the _default_ for new installs)
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:22:37 +0200
Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
For this stuff, add a comment to the metadata.xml file. Don't do it
in this less than obvious way.
arch teams for example will still contact me then for stabilizing, I
do not want that.
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:44:32 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the thought that stable is always stable or that because
we released things are stable is incorrect ;)
You're not supposed to break the stable tree; that
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 12:34 +0200, Edgar Hucek wrote:
Apeal on extended testing :
Developer, please test things more carefull before you
release it.
I hear this (pardon my French) BULLSHIT all the time from our
developers. Look, people, I asked multiple times for assistance with
testing.
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 22:55 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 9/2/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;)
I don't think that that's good thing to be saying to our users.
We didn't need 3000 more developers ... we just needed to give the
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 07:15 +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
But to be honest, stabilization of packages was not my point. ((BTW, stable
X.org, KDE or GNOME would IMO delay the release for a week, so users wouldn't
need to upgrade in such a short time frame - but that's what I think))
People
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 07:41 +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
its developers. Edgar's call was targeted mostly at releng and QA teams, who
should poke developers to decrease number of similar problems.
Sorry, but Release Engineering has no wishes to become the Gentoo
Developer Babysitting
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 07:41 +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
its developers. Edgar's call was targeted mostly at releng and QA teams, who
should poke developers to decrease number of similar problems.
Sorry, but Release Engineering has no wishes to become the Gentoo
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:02:55 -0400:
I asked each member of the portage team (minus Marius, whom I did find
on irc) what they were up to in terms of working on things. Zac
informed me that 2.1.1 would be out of rc status
Hi,
as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
This is also a submission for the new council when it meets.
Best regards,
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
This is also a submission for the new
On 04/09/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
General SMTP/ESMTP error.
[... crap received after posting to -dev ...]
Whoever has bodged their fetchmail configuration, please fix it ASAP!
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
[. . .]
Define contributors -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one
*become* a contributor to get these rights?
This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 23:11 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
I'd have to agree with you on that. I understand the appeal of
exciting press releases but there were over 75 GCC 4.1 bugs still open
for problems in *~arch* when the decision was made to go stable. Even
now
Thanks to atarus, I've updated a number of GLEPs:
40 (arch teams) Now marked Final
44 (manifest2)Now marked Final
8 (adotp-a-dev) Now adopted by tcort, marked Final since it exists without
any clear complaints by the community
21 (package sets) Now adopted by antarus
I've also marked
Hi all,
I have thought a bit more about how to better organize the bash-side of
portage and came to the conclusion that modularization of ebuild.sh (as
proposed in the recent thread Refactoring ebuild.sh) can't be the only
and is not the best thing to do.
There is a fair amount of shell scripts
39 matches
Mail list logo
