-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
foser wrote:
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
To give an example: mzscheme was placed in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ned Ludd wrote:
*poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets
move
all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or
six later comes along sys-ldap and it gets moved there. The logic will
go full
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically
organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing stuff. Do you
group by what the package is used for (email vs. game vs. web browser)
or by what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote:
I think most of the assumptions that you're making involve giving your
user population root access.
Don't
??
The assumptions I am making are clearly not involving giving a user
population
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT,
seems like the name is much longer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
Well, not blocker g, but ...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73181
This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the
dev implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug
before actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Schlemmer wrote:
Problem is many of us have sometimes already too many bugs to care about
users reporting something, and then never coming back, not even talking
about keeping to poke the reporter to come back and say the fix works
fine,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jory A. Pratt wrote:
I have sat here and read you all rant on and on about these
issues,
Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to
*improve* QA.
but you still are not taking into account that when a bug is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads
to waste fairly significant quantities of time staring over everybody's
shoulder? 8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregorio Guidi wrote:
Any proposal that implies an enourmous increase of our human resources is
really useless for us.
Please accept the fact that we cannot change our resources at will, and adapt
any suggestion to this simple principle.
Now
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for
| a living.
Gentoo's 'moving target' development model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for
| a living.
Gentoo's 'moving target' development model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco Matthies wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to
*improve* QA.
Some thoughts from a humble user:
Any improvement must neither excessively waste developer nor user time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
I didn't say that.
I'm saying that (a) team leads do not want to waste their time in such a
way just to give you warm fuzzies (b) devs do not particularly want
their team lead reviewing every single action they take, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jory A. Pratt wrote:
Nathan you have this misconception that just cause a bug apears on
one system it is gonna apear on multiple systems.
What are you talking about? This whole discussion was framed with the
situation where the *developer*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
Dear Nathan,
On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:04 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
party before marking it done.
Great! Thank you for your offer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
party before marking it done.
That's reasonable, but I don't see that party being a Team Lead or even
a dev. If there's a bug filed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be
verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done.
That's not a problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Drake wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical
products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs?
You're now significantly altering your proposal, from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris White wrote:
Doc is still here:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml
After a good ammount of user input the bugzilla doc has been updated. The
new version uses ggdb3 instead of g for debugging and contains a new section
on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that:
|
| Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
Ah, okay. You're talking about patch review. Now this makes sense.
I've always considered the Verified status to be indicative that a third
party has been able to reproduce the bug, not that a fix has been
approved. My mistake.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
If the developer shortage was not as big as it is, we could probably
really do something with your proposition.
Then why not lay the ground work, documentation-wise, now? Then as you
add on developers they have a nice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The will not allow it and I will not allow someone to go fooling in
an ebuild I maintain. Not trying to be an ass here but we have
something called respect for others when it comes to the tree and
what they maintain.
Poor Jory. Respect isn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian D. Harring wrote:
Vapier had suggested yanking (on unmerge, not replacement) any
config_protected file that has the same md5/mtime as what it was
originally merged with.
As and end-user, that would be mana from heaven. :)
Nathan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
That being said, thanks to IU for doing the webcast... now everybody
gets to see what we look like... *grin*
If you're like me, you have a perfect face... for email. :P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' the
ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to work'.
REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho.
I like REVIEWED; it seems to reflect
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Oh come on, haven't you heard my rants about the state of the tree and
the number of monkeys who have commit access?
Yes I've read those rants, among others.. :)
But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:36:43 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs
| with commit access is just bound to increase. So why not focus on how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
*sigh*
Please stay away from that bug. It is assigned to the games team, as it
is a games bug, and it will be gotten to when we have the time and not
before. Nathan is once again using a discussion to fuel his own
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Because that won't help in the slightest.
|
| So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing things
| by default is bad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 Nathan L. Adams
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | Because that won't help
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Reviewing an ebuild has nothing to do with inclusion. For inclusion in
the tree, it also needs to be tested.
You don't take the slightest look at an ebuild (the code) before
including it? Anyhow, whether its testing or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | WONTFIX doesn't seem the right tool for the job:
| |
| |WONTFIX
| | The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed.
|
| And the ebuild attached will never be 'fixed' in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:00:02PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
WONTFIX refers to the bug, not the attached ebuild.
And it won't be 'fixed' unless the ebuild is improved, so WONTFIX is
fine.
As R Hill already
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
Not to sound harsh, but...
[snip the we're just volanteers argument]
All F/OSS projects (even Linux with its numerous corporate sponsors)
are, at their core, volanteer projects. Yet the good ones still manage
to build peer review into
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news
Somehow, I doubt that... ;)
but that's because you don't realize
how many devs are sitting back and giggling at this thread 8)
I didn't realize you got together with other devs for giggle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Meltzer wrote:
This time I'll say something useful :)
Nathan, you seem to be misunderstanding open source. You get the I
can ask for features or suggest things part, but not that I can add
features or do things part. No one is stopping
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
And - as I told you the last time you brought this issue up - you're
more than welcome to start reviewing ebuilds and commits as well.
I'm starting to do just that. I've even asked Ciaran to review a
particular ebuild I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato wrote:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual/
Thanks, I've been wondering where Ciaran's docs went. :)
Now, there one question that I won't be able to answer for myself
anytime soon:
What are the most common ebuild mistakes?
A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
| What are the most common ebuild mistakes?
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=3
Thanks everyone. I'll bug each of you individually if I need clarification.
Nathan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Well, it strikes me that most if not all of the organisational questions
are not relevant to a tester; the only technical question that is
relevant is 9 (keyword marking), and even that would be reworded for the
tester
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Martin wrote:
I'm not sure I like this. I think it would be too slow. I'd rather have
a concept of maintainer arch (the reason I still like the old keyword
ordering, because there was at least *some* idea of maintainer arch. In
fact, I used to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
package.mask. ~arch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Kursawe wrote:
Hi all,
I am going to add a local USE flag gimp to xsane which triggers building
of xsane as a plugin for the GIMP.
Bye,
Patrick
Or how about an xsane flag for GIMP that makes the xsane plugin a
dependency. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And as for taking it as a PISSOFF... We've had exactly one person do
that so far. All the rest of the feedback we receive -- which is a heck
of a lot -- is of the thanks for the pointers, please could someone
check this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really
anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get
it done ;)
They *could* do some 'creative re-org' a.k.a. remove some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with
different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what
devrel's responsibilities are
It sounds like somebody needs to take a look at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
GLEP's are developed after the details are ironed out in public developer
forums ... their purpose isnt to fast track changes through the Gentoo
council to kill long threads
not saying that is what you meant, just making
Jon Portnoy wrote:
Sounds to me more like people who aren't familiar with the internal
structure of Gentoo don't need to be the peanut gallery when it comes to
internal structural issues, but that's just me 8)
It sounds to me like those 'more familiar with the internal structure
Gentoo'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kito wrote:
Greetings,
On behalf of the g/fbsd and macos teams, I'd like to call a meeting
for all members of the gentoo-alt projects (and anyone else who would
like to attend) on Monday September 26 at 19:00 UTC.
Items on the Agenda so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
I don't trust automatic correction, false positives can always happen,
currently my way to proceed with such problems is opening a big bug and
poking maintainers to fix them :)
The esyntaxer tool will warn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 01:42 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
There is *only one time* we can guarantee that we'll have a user's
attention. That's right after the message that tells a user how many
CONFIG_PROTECT files they need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[a reply]
1. Store the actual guides as GuideXML at a central place such as
http://errata.gentoo.org/
2. Write a simple 'publishing' tool that extracts a summary and a link.
This is what gets pumped into portage and shown
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:49:42 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| 6. Ciaran is completely biased against XML (or anything that isn't
| stored as a simple flat file) ;)
It's not bias. I give XML exactly what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:32:47 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| What do you mean they aren't tied to ebuilds? I don't really
| understand what this feature should do then, it seems. Once again,
| what's wrong with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:26 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:16:03 +0100 Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| For them to know about it, they need to be warned when they do their
| emerge -p world or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:29:45 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Flat files can be great in certain situations. Flat files do indeed
| make the parsing trivial. However SIMPLE CODE ISN'T ALWAYS THE MOST
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:45:08 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Just keep in mind that portage is supposed to be non-interactive and
| most users like it that way. (Although the countdown when cleaning out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 14:51 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Did you specifically ask them if it is because we have different news in
different locations? Somehow I think you're obscuring some facts to
make your own argument.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:02:58 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So if you didn't want people to actually review and comment on *your*
| GLEP, why did you write:
|
| The attached GLEP is a draft proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:05:45 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:45:08 -0500 Nathan L. Adams
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | Just keep in mind that portage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:24:27 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I'm also commenting on the part that *wrongly* states It is not
| reasonable to expect all users to have an MTA, *web browser*, email
| client
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
Not necessarily the website imo, some central store where it's pushed
out to all of the locations though (which I suspect you're getting
at).
I forgot to clarify one point. I'm saying that http://errata.g.o/ should
be the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
*ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have
a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never
get Gentoo installed in the first place. The lightweight requirement
appears
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? (Don't
lie). And you expect that the average user installs a Gentoo server
without at least referencing the documentation? Pa-leaze.
Funny, I've done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:36:03 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation?
Actually, yes, I did. I can quite easily do installs without the
documentation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lance Albertson wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
*ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have
a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never
get Gentoo installed in the first place
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote: [Thu Nov 03 2005, 07:02:58PM CST]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Read the list of requirements in the GLEP. The plain text solution
meets all of them. XML fails
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
What is worse is that some
users might not update for a prolongued time (6 months). At that time
they will not find the information in the erata list anymore. But they
will get the RELEVANT news delivered by emerge/enews.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Oh god help. This also points to another reason why this is not such a
good idea. Writing guideXML is a lot more work than writing an e-mail
format file (ciaran's proposed format for those who didn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:24 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
*ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have
a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never
get Gentoo installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:36 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? (Don't
lie). And you expect that the average user installs a Gentoo server
without at least
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 10:58 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
I've done several Gentoo installs and never knew the plain text versions
existed. I think you might want to check the assumption that just
because they exists
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Yeah, see, this is a case where not understanding the structure of
Gentoo gives you the wrong impression. The GDP's policy applies to the
GDP. That is not a global developer policy of any kind. It is a policy
by a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grobian wrote:
Danny van Dyk wrote:
IMHO a text based file has a big advantage in this proposed application
over fileformats which use XML: Any administrator can read it with his
editor of choice, right from the console.
This is an
76 matches
Mail list logo
