В Вск, 30/11/2008 в 16:59 -0600, Ryan Hill пишет:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500
> Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [proposal]
> I know it's not directly related to stabilization, but lately people
> have been removing the only keyworded package for the mips arch, under
> the excus
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Instead of addressing archs as being slackers or not, this addresses
> it as a more granular layer of looking at ebuilds. Thanks to Richard
> Freeman for the initial proposal that I based this off of. Please
> give me fe
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:04:33 -0500
Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Honestly, I don't want to be a dick to the arch teams. I really
> don't. But I *also* don't want them (or policy) to be a dick to me.
> That's my whole point; that requirement of never removing the last
> stable ebu
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 15:18 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500
> Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500
> > > Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500
Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500
> > Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:38 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 17:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500
> Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is not about arches just being slackers. This is about arches
> > denying stable (or even ~) for some reason. If I cannot drop an old
> > version
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500
Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not about arches just being slackers. This is about arches
> denying stable (or even ~) for some reason. If I cannot drop an old
> version of something just because the new version doesn't (and won't)
> work
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500
> Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:38 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > The maintainer MUST NOT NEVER EVER NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT remove the
> > > latest st
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500
Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:38 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
>
>
>
> > The maintainer MUST NOT NEVER EVER NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT remove the
> > latest stable ebuild of an arch without the approval of the arch
> > team or he
Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 17
Nov 2008 19:08:39 +0100:
> Process might be as easy
> as CC'ing a arch-tinderbox on a bug, a script does parse the bug number
> out of the mail being sent out and using gatt it catches the ebuild to
> test,
On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:38 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> The maintainer MUST NOT NEVER EVER NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT remove the
> latest stable ebuild of an arch without the approval of the arch team or
> he/she will be fed to the Galrog.
As long as the maintainer can pass off the maintenance of the
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no
> technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY
[...] mark that ebuild as stable on every keyworded arch (that has a
stable keyword).
> If
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11
Nov 2008 19:12:41 +0100:
> You did it again in the "IOW" quotation above explaining it as a "triple
> emphasis" instead of what it was intended to denote, namely as a few
> possible examples of the meaning of
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:26:51 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Words
> > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as
> > easily to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a
> > single person's.
> Yes, but it's a relative thing.
>huge snip<
That's wha
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:26 +, Duncan wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11
> Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100:
>
> > Words
> > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily
> > to the state of a company's or nation
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11
Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100:
> Words
> like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily
> to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a single person's.
Yes, but it's a relative th
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:02 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's a "production, critical, important" system, then what is one
> doing installing updates on it directly without verifying them on a
> generally identical test system first?
Now you're ridiculing the idea of havi
Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:18:34 +0100:
> Mixing software branches is very easy in the Gentoo world but it has
> some problems. Are you going to install in your stable (production,
> critial, important,...) system a combi
18 matches
Mail list logo
