Am Mittwoch, 1. März 2006 08:21 schrieb Jakub Moc:
28.2.2006, 16:31:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
|
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 21:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:09:02 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
|
| if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
|
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 00:08, Mike Frysinger wrote:
dont get me wrong, i wasnt implying that bugs shouldnt be filed ... i was
addressing the incorrect idea that it isnt a valid QA issue unless a user
experiences it and complains via bugzilla
I agree with this. I would however also like to
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
| Getting a complete list is
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:30:24 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| OK, so kernel-2.eclass is abusing the slot as well, go scream on
| kernel devs.
No. kernel-2 installs sources, not an actual package.
Not exactly. The webapp stuff gets installed to
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 02:37, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 16:29:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The whole devrel handbook is policy, except where otherwise noted. See
Mike's reply.
Then any significant change there requires a sane procedure.
which does not change the fact that the devrel
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion
On Monday 27 February 2006 16:12, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion will just get repeated over and over.
This
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:12:22 +
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input
from Stuart to be fixed.
I'm afraid you've been mis-informed. The PHP herd has provided a
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:49:23 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| rhetorical question
| May I ask how is that related to webapp-config?
| /rhetorical question
It is related to Stuart, and hence utterly relevant to the conversation.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:30:27PM +, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(Yes, I'm taking that sentence out of context, but the fact that it
comes up at all says something, to my mind.)
Your mind is a dark and twisted place!
--
Role:Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead
Gentoo
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion
On Monday 27 February 2006 18:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| So if the maintainer sticks SANDBOX_DISABLE=1 rm -fr / in global
| scope and refuses to move it, QA will have to get council approval
| to fix it?
|
|
On Monday 27 February 2006 21:37, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| You know where bugzilla is. You know how to contact any of the
| webapp-config maintainers via email, or via IRC. We're ready to
| listen to your input, and to work with you (or anyone else) on fixing
| any genuine problems that
On Monday 27 February 2006 19:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:05:58 -0600 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Of course, that leaves the question of who decides on the severity of
| a QA violation?
All this talk of severity, and no talk of ease of detection or ease
You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all the ways
in which webapp-config is broken or apologize to the concerned developers
for false claims.
Still waiting.
OK, here is one. It seems that
webapp-config should be updated to handle such situation more gracefully, so
why don't you file a bug about this? Is that all you have wrt all the ways
in which webapp-config is broken? If so, that's not really much of a
justification of the broad claim ciaranm has made as a QA project member.
On 2/28/06, Stephen P. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, here is one. It seems that webapp-config silently assumes your
webserver is apache by default. If a user uses lighttpd for example,
this is totally incorrect.
Now, this doesn't cause webapp-config to fail to emerge, but the first
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 04:49, Jakub Moc wrote:
No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printable;
part=3chap=1
so what, you want us to duplicate everything in one document and place it in
the
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
|
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printablepart=3chap=1
No, the whole thing is policy.
| Moreover, the cited howto is
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:21:14 + Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| We've committed a fix for this problem upstream. We'll probably roll
| out w-c 1.5.11 at the weekend. That'll give us suitable time to test
| this, and to incorporate the QA issues from Ciaran that we're still
| waiting
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will
| be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do
| agree with them though that the distribution should not be held back
| by
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:23 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/sys-apps/bootstrap
| _cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=1.1content-type=text/plain
|
| Probably because although it isn't a good ebuild it still works and
| does not
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:38:17 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
| brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all
| the ways in which webapp-config is broken or apologize to the
| concerned developers
On 2/28/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still not convinced that it's worth my while
*You* chose to mention webapp-config in this thread. Stop making
excuses. Make good on your claims.
Put up, or shut up.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:23 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Huh? It violates the sandbox even if you do 'emerge sync' and never
touch the ebuild. Look at the frickin' mkdir!
Hmm. Didn't realise that the sandbox is more
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:00, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Basically, I really don't see why webapp-config can't have some logic
built in which makes it smart enough to figure out which webserver
somebody is using.
Please remember that the apache group is just another name for httpd
group.
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:52 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:38:17 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
| brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all
| the ways in which
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:52:46PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation. Getting
a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot longer, and I
have yet to be convinced that my time would not be better spent
elsewhere.
So let me
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will
| be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do
| agree with them
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
| Getting a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot
| longer, and I have yet to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
| and false claims and shut up... TIA.
Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally ask for better, you
asked for anything. If better's what you're after:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented
| | here:
| |
|
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:47, Lance Albertson wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
| and only the council should be able to overrule
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 10:08, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:42:30 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Punting every single piece of broken sh*t from the tree requires
notifying everyone on -dev ml and allowing a period of time before
it's actually done, so silently changing/stating policies is a very
broken practice.
This
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 15:42 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
| and false claims and shut up... TIA.
Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally ask for
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:11:58 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
| What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
| depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical at first
| glance, but I'm not aware of the issues it
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:22:57 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Eh? Seen kernel2.eclass? Going to file a bug about that as well? Seen
| gst/gstreamer eclasses? Going to file QA bugs about them as well? And
| - what's exactly the QA violation there, if you could enlighten us?
You're
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical at first
glance, but I'm not aware of the issues it causes.
One issue
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
notice that it checks that SLOT hasn't been changed to something sane.
Excepting that you can set WEBAPP_MANUAL_SLOT=yes and set SLOT to whatever the
hell you
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a
| revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users
| will still have the old broken package installed too. This is
| especially relevant for
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
| notice that it checks that SLOT hasn't been changed to something
| sane.
|
|
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
broken.
Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you use
the webapp eclass, setting SLOT=0 is incorrect. There are some cases in
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:38:10 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
fi
Uh, what the fuck is that doing in an eclass ?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
fi
Ciaran,
(and this is valid for all emails to
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:59:49PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
If you show a wrong code snippet please explain _why_ it is wrong in the
same email.
Ehm you mean it is not obvious that calling emerge inside an eclass
is utterly wrong ?
--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
Gentoo Developer
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
you show a QA violation.
This is a technical discussion list, and as such it is fair to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| (and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
| please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
| you show a QA violation.
Oh come on. I'm not going to insult the intelligence of people
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:30:24 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| OK, so kernel-2.eclass is abusing the slot as well, go scream on
| kernel devs.
No. kernel-2 installs sources, not an actual package.
| | Yeah, it checks for that since that's the way the eclass is
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:19 +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
you show a QA violation.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:12:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Oh come on. I'm not going to insult the intelligence of people reading
this list by explaining something that frickin' obvious. When it's a
subtle issue I explain why it's wrong. When it isn't, I try to avoid
wasting everyone's
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
fi
Semantics of the logic aside, calling emerge from within an
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:11:26PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:11:26PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:27:01 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, don't invent problems, please.
Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean it's not there.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why didn't you point out
| to an obvious eclass flaw about 30 emails and many hours ago, saving
us from
| all the eclass formating,
which part dont you understand ? the user sets a variable and then is told
that the package probably contains a bug ... seems pretty confusing to me
-mike
rl03 already replied to that. I don't see any QA issues there, and if
someone from QA team does, then he probably has too much time to
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
broken.
Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you
use the webapp
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:09:02 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
|
| if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
| einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
|
| emerge
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:10, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
subject
considering the nature of the warning, it
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out
which QA issues are important and which are
On 2/28/06, Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:50:40 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when
| a user files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
|
| I don't think that's the lesson. It
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
subject
considering the nature of
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:57:05PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:50:40 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when
| a user files a
Renat Lumpau wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out
which QA issues are
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:14:33PM -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
I think
it's fair to say that these QA checks will find problems ranging from
not-awful-but-annoying to could-break-your-system, but they are all bugs
that ought to be fixed eventually. Now, if you're currently working on
fixing
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA
team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead
follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to
-dev asking for
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:34 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| (We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal
| of mkdir in global scope)
Eek no. Have you any idea what happens when someone shoves an mkdir in
global scope? That one is most definitely on the list
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:58, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
they should be able to without having an invalid
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 22:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:34 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| (We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal
| of mkdir in global scope)
Eek no. Have you any idea what happens when someone shoves an
Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes. Here's a quote from Halcy0n (with his permission):
Don't mistake me not getting involved for approval. I am just not going to
get involved in every single dev-dev disagreement, and certainly not when I
do not have all of the facts. I wasn't
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA
team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead
follow the same rules as new global USE flags or
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:34:32PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes. Here's a quote from Halcy0n (with his permission):
Don't mistake me not getting involved for approval. I am just not going
to
get involved in every single dev-dev disagreement,
Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So you're saying it's ok to have one team member who steps out of line and
cannot be managed? Are all teams allowed that exception?
Did you read what I said? I talked to him and told him what I expect.
I'm telling you to not expect him to change, not that
Mark Loeser wrote:
I don't think you will find one person that is going to say they are
capable of changing how Ciaran interacts with people. This is an
entirely different issue though, and I have talked to Ciaran about it.
What I was saying above is that I am not going to go and get
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
| problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please
| comment on bug #114944. (this bug is only open to Gentoo developers).
| Its better if you say it
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
| problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please
| comment on bug #114944. (this bug
Lance Albertson wrote:
I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please comment
on bug #114944. (this bug is only open to Gentoo developers). Its better
if you say it yourself in this bug rather than letting other people
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:09:29PM -0500, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with that is, it usually ends up with too many pointless
comments from people saying how things could be fixed in the distant
future, or whining that it isn't explicitly forbidden by policy on
Hi Mark,
On 2/27/06, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your change seems to imply that the QA team must wait for the council's
okay to go forth and fix the package, rather the QA team able to act on
its own. If that is the case, I don't see how we would ever be able to
get things done
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:12:52PM -0500, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is meant to prevent the case where the QA team ( or a subset; the
established QA members ) decides to make unilateral changes to the tree
( or large subset thereof )
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
| and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions
| in the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else.
So if
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0500 Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I think I agree with the part that security@ having near final say.
Security have (admittedly not very often) screwed up in the past.
Fixing a security issue at the expense of utterly h0rking an arch, for
example, is not an
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 + John Mylchreest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| In this specific instance, impossible is effectively a point of view.
| For me the question comes down to this.. If QA trump maintainer, then
| who picks the QA staff? If anyone can become QA staff, then this is
|
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:37:52PM +, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 + John Mylchreest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| In this specific instance, impossible is effectively a point of view.
| For me the question comes down to this.. If QA trump
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| So if the maintainer sticks SANDBOX_DISABLE=1 rm -fr / in global
| scope and refuses to move it, QA will have to get council approval
| to fix it?
|
| Use some common sense when showing an example please. We all know
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:09:42 + John Mylchreest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| My point was the more along the lines that the existing QA team need
| to convince the rest of the development community that they know what
| they're doing first. Whats stopping the existing QA team disregarding
| all
On Monday 27 February 2006 12:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:15 + Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Again, then we are going to get into the argument of the definition
| of an emergency and never be able to get anything done. We really
| hope problems
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600
Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We all know that
something that stupid needs to be delt with quickly.
So you're agreeing that someone needs to be able to act should a
package maintainer screw up sufficiently badly, and the obvious
candidate for that
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:08:34PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave enough
to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
wrobel and I would be very interested to see such a document. In the
meantime, we shall continue to
Mark Loeser wrote:
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
My suspicion is that the more common problem is going to be inaccessible
developers, rather than uncooperative ones. Certainly, if a maintainer
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:21:29 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| if something is going to lead to considerable damage and the
| maintainer is unwilling to resolve the issue, then i'm pretty sure
| there's more to be resolved here than fixing a package
Sure. There're other parts of the
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:05:58 -0600 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Of course, that leaves the question of who decides on the severity of
| a QA violation?
All this talk of severity, and no talk of ease of detection or ease
of fixing...
Allow me to explain. There are certain not
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
My suspicion is that the more common problem is going to be inaccessible
developers, rather than
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
| and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions
| in the case of disagreement between the
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave enough
to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
This isn't the first time we've heard this tune from you, and alas I
fear it won't be the last.
You know
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
| enough to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
|
| This isn't the first
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
