On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:06:05 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
And a knife or hammer can be used to murder or commit suicide as
well; that doesn't mean they're bad tools, it means the user is
misusing them.
The amount of users misusing a knife or hammer is much lower than the
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
not to change the priority and severity
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a
On 22/05/2013 18:58, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
that a stable request is ok without a
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days,
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
(What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
Why are they enhancements?
On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb
On 22/05/2013 21:00, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
(What is an enhanced severity to begin with,
On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
(What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
Why are they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
[ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization?? It lets
everyone opt-in, and we still
On 05/22/2013 08:53 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
[ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization?? It lets
everyone opt-in, and we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 06:07 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 07:16 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way to
leave the bug open and state that it will be stabled later. Would
a comment trigger this in the script? That seems semi-sane.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM, viv...@gmail.com viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a
On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:25 +0200
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Automagic stabilization is a bad idea.
I agree. Maintainer timeout is not a valid reason to go
ahead with stabilisation. If you really want to push forward, you
should be required to do more research as bug reporter.
And
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation no
answer to stable bug in 30 days = package unmantained ;-)
This could actually work
Then we'd get the Ubuntu/Launchpad situation, where
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yet the base system lead went and apply it to any stabilization
bug; as both him and Jer (the bug wrangling lead) do it this way,
I'll be doing it as well. Let's not be inconsistent with our leads
unless
On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
[ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
package is
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:43 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
themselves. You should just do it yourself or turn your script off.
Maintainer(s) and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 10:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation
no answer to stable bug in 30 days = package unmantained
;-)
On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
[ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
So why don't we add something to
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
The amount of users misusing a knife or hammer is much lower than the
amount of users misusing INSTALL_MASK.
Agreed. A typical user would almost never need to use INSTALL_MASK.
If they're using it, they're probably doing
On 05/21/2013 09:03 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 21/05/2013 05:03, Daniel Campbell wrote:
That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems
like a hack instead of something more robust. Why include
On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:46:22 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
As a user, I've understood:
* Severity is something the user/filer can use.
So when Chromium doesn't compile on your machine, you set it as a
Blocker, and then it gets reverted to Normal because it works fine for
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 11:14 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:37:25 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:04 +0100 as
excerpted:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
The point I was making is we could improve things by a fair margin. If
all stabilisation bugs had a Severity that actually reflected the
severity, then I'd pay
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
A newer version of a package is usually considered to be better in
some way, hence it is an enhancement.
Unless it's a Blocker, of course. :)
According to the bug-wrangler's own docs[1]: A stabilisation request
On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:03:21 +0200
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:43 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
themselves.
On 05/22/2013 08:21 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
check the FEATURES variable and be surprise =) (from man make.conf)
nodoc Do not install doc files (/usr/share/doc).
noinfo Do not install info pages.
noman Do not install manpages.
Adding a nounits
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/22/2013 08:21 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
check the FEATURES variable and be surprise =) (from man make.conf)
nodoc Do not install doc files (/usr/share/doc).
noinfo Do not install info
On 05/20/2013 10:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote:
On 05/19/2013 01:05 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
J. Roeleveld wrote:
I don't see how this will
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote:
On 05/20/2013 10:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote:
On 05/19/2013 01:05 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Peter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/22/2013 09:11 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way to
leave the bug open and state that it will be stabled later. Would
a comment
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:42:08AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
It will require portage to be able to predict where the units are
installed, and also be able to avoid accidentally wiping out anything
else that may be installed nearby. The prediction issue also comes up in
this bug which
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 22 May 2013 16:24:05 +0100 as excerpted:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:37:25 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:04 +0100 as
excerpted:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net
42 matches
Mail list logo
