Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2008-05-06 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On 01 May 2008 05:30:01
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
 vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
 Gentoo dev list to see.

I'd like a decision on the eight digits thing in PMS:

 No integer part of a version specification may contain more than eight
 digits.

It's been discussed on this list previously:

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_db2f5c09c2c0c8b042ca3d0dcec7cdaf.xml

and on bugzilla:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188449

and I get the impression that there aren't any particularly strong
feelings either way. So can we get a Council ruling to either kill the
limit and strongly encourage people to fix their code, or keep the
limit and start enforcing it and fixing it in the tree via repoman etc?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2008-05-01 Thread Ferris McCormick
(I'll Try again, from correct email address)

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 05:30 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
 the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
 (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
 
 If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
 vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
 Gentoo dev list to see.
 
Just to summarize, for purposes of informing everyone of something I've
already requested.

Recently we retired 3 developers, the devrel project was not involved as
a group except for the lead, and apparently the developers did not know
anyone was looking at complaints filed against them.  I'd like Council
(1) to explain its role in this, if any, (2) explain why it permits such
actions in apparent violation of Gentoo's policy of openness, (3) and
since there seems to be some confusion (on my part at least) how to
interpret Council's role in any appeal IF (I don't really know) Council
played a part in the disciplinary action, please amend Council's
enabling document GLEP 39 to explain how Council handles appeals and
whether or not Council can take or direct disciplinary action in light
of this absolute requirement.

Since this is a general mailing list and some of you might not know what
I'm talking about, this is GLEP 39 and as such it helps define Gentoo
policy and procedure.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html

 

 Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
 must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
 before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
 before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
 notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.
 
 For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
 http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2008-05-01 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On N, 2008-05-01 at 05:30 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
 the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
 (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
 
 If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
 vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
 Gentoo dev list to see.

I would like to see the council to chat about two points, which are the
following:


1) ChangeLog entries and when one is a must-have. This especially in
relation to arch stabilizations.

2) The situation of keywording, stabilization or other bugs being
completely ignored by the arm, sh and s390 teams. Can something be done
to help in resolving this? Stabilizations do happen, but ignoring the
bugs, and whenever they are felt to be done, and no un-CC-ing happens -
usually with a 1 to 5 months of delay.


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

José Luis Rivero (yoswink) wrote:
 Roy Marples wrote:

 I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member,
 but not part of the games team/herd.

 One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever
 keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application
 just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking
 to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is
 launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That
 means our users need the game right away.
 
 Thanks for the example, trust me if I tell you that we can understand
 the situation pretty well.
 

 I used to commit EL straight to stable for this very reason, but now
 after a few Gentoo QA people bitched EL will never ever have a stable
 keyword. 
 
 I'm nearly sure that you always (at least) compile and run the new
 version in your box before you sent it to stable, didn't you? So, at
 least, you are able to say that it works in your case.
 
 So instead I periodically have to let our users know how to
 unmask EL just so they can play their game.
 
 There are always ways to educate users about how to use portage properly.
 
 So no, in many cases NOT committing straight to stable CAN be
 detrimental to our users if all they want is a games machine. You could
 argue that they shouldn't be using Gentoo, but I would argue why should
 we discriminate?

 
 Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or
 beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different to
 Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch
 packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo).
 

Agreed.
All Gentoo beryl users need to use ~arch. I don't think games are so
special that we must provide them on stable arch. Afertall, if games are
keyworded testing, users can add them to /etc/portage/packaage.keywords
if they run a stable system.

 This is how I see it:
 
 Problem with keywording straight to stable is that arch teams are very
 zealous about our stable branch. We put a lot of time trying things to
 not fail in stable, and if an app is broken, we prefer to not force the
 users to compile and install another broken (or unknown to be broken)
 version and work to fix the current stable (patches or bumping) together
 with the maintainer.
 
 But if you send things, that you can't try, to stable, the qa baby jesus
 will cry if it fails, because nobody has taken care of even compile it
 in the arch  :)
 
 Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have
 the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those
 el1te gam3rs.
 
 Thanks.
 

I also don't agree with having an exception for the games herd. As
others have questioned, how are games more important than security
bumps? If we were considering exceptions, I would argue that allowing
the security team to mark packages as stable would make a lot more
sense, imho.

Anyway, the important point here for the council meeting is whether our
keywording policy is to be enforced or not, regardless of herd, or if /
how we want to have exceptions.


DISCLAIMER: I have no problems with games. I do like to play some, but I
see no problem with using package.keywords.

- --
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo-forums / Userrel / Proctors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGOxXWcAWygvVEyAIRAgv5AJ9k5N/7Uri+rFCxOZllSp2NwmB67gCfepe3
A1Yj3pwuAI3oo/TODP7N79E=
=UYbe
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Alan McKinnon
On Friday 04 May 2007, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
 I also don't agree with having an exception for the games herd. As
 others have questioned, how are games more important than security
 bumps? If we were considering exceptions, I would argue that allowing
 the security team to mark packages as stable would make a lot more
 sense, imho.

A quick 2c here from the peanut gallery:

Just leave the affected games always keyworded ~arch. The users of games 
are generally pretty savvy and they know how portage works. You might 
even find the majority of games players run ~arch boxes anyway so they 
will never notice that the game ebuild is not in stable

alan


-- 
Optimists say the glass is half full,
Pessimists say the glass is half empty,
Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be?

Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Alec Warner
Alan McKinnon wrote:
 On Friday 04 May 2007, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
 I also don't agree with having an exception for the games herd. As
 others have questioned, how are games more important than security
 bumps? If we were considering exceptions, I would argue that allowing
 the security team to mark packages as stable would make a lot more
 sense, imho.

There has never been an exception for games.  There is however, no one
willing to beat games herd (and others) with a stick sufficiently often
that they stop.

I don't even see how this is a policy discussion at all as the policy is
more or less clear to me; is it unclear for others?  This is an
enforcement problem, no?

-Alec
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 12:15 +0200, José Luis Rivero (yoswink) wrote:
 Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have 
 the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those 
 el1te gam3rs.

We actively discourage users from using ~arch for stable, since it is,
well, more stable.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 08:53 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
 I don't even see how this is a policy discussion at all as the policy is
 more or less clear to me; is it unclear for others?  This is an
 enforcement problem, no?

No.  It *was* an enforcement problem.  The problem has been resolved
already.  There's really no need for the Council to speak on this.
Keyword policy applies to everyone.  In the cases of certain games, such
as Eternal Lands (thanks Roy!), we can make exceptions simply because of
the necessity.  That being said, there's nothing stopping games (or any
maintainer) from filing a stabilization bug *immediately* after putting
a package in the tree.  I've done it on games a few times and I've seen
it done on things like portage when a necessary fix needed to go out as
quickly as possible.

The point of policy is *not* to impede progress.  It is supposed to be
to provide our users the best quality distribution.  If policy gets in
the way of progress without gain for our users, then the policy needs to
be revisited.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


RE: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Karl Haines
Lol, its funny that we must concern ourselves with the needs of el1te
gam3rs, but I suppose its necessary.

Karl Haines

-Original Message-
From: Chris Gianelloni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 2:13 PM
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 12:15 +0200, José Luis Rivero (yoswink) wrote:
 Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have 
 the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those 
 el1te gam3rs.

We actively discourage users from using ~arch for stable, since it is,
well, more stable.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 04 May 2007 15:36:51 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The point of policy is *not* to impede progress.  It is supposed to be
 to provide our users the best quality distribution.  If policy gets in
 the way of progress without gain for our users, then the policy needs
 to be revisited.

And the point of enforcing policy and escalating problems is to prevent
rogue developers from breaking stable, screwing over users' systems and
then repeatedly refusing to show any sign that they've learned from
that and lots of other mistakes.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 20:43 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Fri, 04 May 2007 15:36:51 -0400
 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The point of policy is *not* to impede progress.  It is supposed to be
  to provide our users the best quality distribution.  If policy gets in
  the way of progress without gain for our users, then the policy needs
  to be revisited.
 
 And the point of enforcing policy and escalating problems is to prevent
 rogue developers from breaking stable, screwing over users' systems and
 then repeatedly refusing to show any sign that they've learned from
 that and lots of other mistakes.

What does enforcement have to do with the Council?  The Council
approves/enacts policy.  We don't do enforcement.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-04 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 4 May 2007 14:37:21 -0500
Karl Haines [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Lol, its funny that we must concern ourselves with the needs of
 el1te gam3rs, but I suppose its necessary.

We concern ourselves with the needs of everyone, from our elite users,
to our crapola devs. There are, or should, be no favourites.

Hi Mom :D

Roy
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Wed, 2 May 2007 22:00:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 What, people deliberately breaking policy that directly leads to
 breaking stable and not having any working ebuilds for a package in
 the tree, and then refusing to do anything about it is nothing?
 
  the issue has been taken care of 
 
 You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council
 members who aren't games team members think?
 
  [to the detriment of users]
 
 How is not having broken packages committed straight to stable
 detrimental to users?

I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member,
but not part of the games team/herd.

One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever
keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application
just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking
to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is
launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That
means our users need the game right away.

I used to commit EL straight to stable for this very reason, but now
after a few Gentoo QA people bitched EL will never ever have a stable
keyword. So instead I periodically have to let our users know how to
unmask EL just so they can play their game.

So no, in many cases NOT committing straight to stable CAN be
detrimental to our users if all they want is a games machine. You could
argue that they shouldn't be using Gentoo, but I would argue why should
we discriminate?

Thanks

Roy

DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email
with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-03 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 03 May 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
 DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email
 with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass.

there's nothing of value in said bug so having not read it is OK
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-03 Thread José Luis Rivero (yoswink)

Roy Marples wrote:


I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member,
but not part of the games team/herd.

One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever
keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application
just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking
to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is
launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That
means our users need the game right away.


Thanks for the example, trust me if I tell you that we can understand 
the situation pretty well.




I used to commit EL straight to stable for this very reason, but now
after a few Gentoo QA people bitched EL will never ever have a stable
keyword. 


I'm nearly sure that you always (at least) compile and run the new 
version in your box before you sent it to stable, didn't you? So, at 
least, you are able to say that it works in your case.



So instead I periodically have to let our users know how to
unmask EL just so they can play their game.


There are always ways to educate users about how to use portage properly.


So no, in many cases NOT committing straight to stable CAN be
detrimental to our users if all they want is a games machine. You could
argue that they shouldn't be using Gentoo, but I would argue why should
we discriminate?



Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or 
beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different to 
Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch 
packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo).


This is how I see it:

Problem with keywording straight to stable is that arch teams are very 
zealous about our stable branch. We put a lot of time trying things to 
not fail in stable, and if an app is broken, we prefer to not force the 
users to compile and install another broken (or unknown to be broken) 
version and work to fix the current stable (patches or bumping) together 
with the maintainer.


But if you send things, that you can't try, to stable, the qa baby jesus 
will cry if it fails, because nobody has taken care of even compile it 
in the arch  :)


Games are not part of core system, so IMHO, use the ~arch branch to have 
the latest cool version to enjoy, could be a good way to go for those 
el1te gam3rs.


Thanks.

--
Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:15:45 +0200
José Luis Rivero (yoswink) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or 
 beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different
 to Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch 
 packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo).

No no no.
In my example we can only use one version of the game with the upstream
servers. There is only 1 upstream server, we have to use it.

So if it supports 6 archs and some of the arch teams take a few months
to mark it stable then the chances are it will be out of date anyway
and the slacker arches will never have a stable keyword.

So remove the onus on slacker arches making games stable I just don't
bother with the stable keyword for network games ever.

Gnome-2.18 on the other hand is a desktop product with zero upstream
interaction except with programs that have clearly defined protocols
and are normally backwards compatible. Like say HTTP

 
 This is how I see it:
 
 Problem with keywording straight to stable is that arch teams are
 very zealous about our stable branch. We put a lot of time trying
 things to not fail in stable, and if an app is broken, we prefer to
 not force the users to compile and install another broken (or unknown
 to be broken) version and work to fix the current stable (patches or
 bumping) together with the maintainer.

Right, but if stable client version != stable usptream server version
it cannot be used anyway, making the stable keyword here a bit of a
joke.

 But if you send things, that you can't try, to stable, the qa baby
 jesus will cry if it fails, because nobody has taken care of even
 compile it in the arch  :)

Well, that's up to the arch teams I guess. Lots of things fail randomly
on g/fbsd because of a patch added to fix a linux bug. Maybe when we
g/fbsd gets a stable branch then we'll come down on the linux
developers like a ton of bricks :)

Thanks

Roy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-03 Thread Matthias Langer
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 08:11 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
 On Wed, 2 May 2007 22:00:05 +0100
 Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  What, people deliberately breaking policy that directly leads to
  breaking stable and not having any working ebuilds for a package in
  the tree, and then refusing to do anything about it is nothing?
  
   the issue has been taken care of 
  
  You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council
  members who aren't games team members think?
  
   [to the detriment of users]
  
  How is not having broken packages committed straight to stable
  detrimental to users?
 
 I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member,
 but not part of the games team/herd.
 
 One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever
 keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application
 just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking
 to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is
 launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That
 means our users need the game right away.

ok, agreed, this is a valid point. so i would suggest, that maintainers
of games where this argument applies, come to special agreements with
the arch teams - or just file bugreports like this:


although games-foo/lord-of-bar-2.4.6 has just been bumped, i would like
to have it stable real soon, as upstream has changed the network
protocol. i have x86 and amd64 hardware available, and can confirm, that
the game works nice there; so, if no one objects, i'm gonna mark
lord-of-bar-2.4.6 stable on x86 and amd64 in two days. i would also like
to have a shiny sparc keyword, but have no hardware to test. so it would
be highly appreciated if someone from the sparc team can give the game a
try.


but committing straight to stable on arches where the package wasn't
even tested is an absolute no-do for me.  

 DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email
 with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass.

no, in fact you are the first one that comes up with a valid argument,
why games sometimes should go to stable almost immediately. sad, but
true...

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-03 Thread José Luis Rivero (yoswink)

Roy Marples escribió:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:15:45 +0200
José Luis Rivero (yoswink) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or 
beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different
to Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch 
packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo).


No no no.
In my example we can only use one version of the game with the upstream
servers. There is only 1 upstream server, we have to use it.



Excuse me, Roy. I didn't get the point.

Only one upstream server seems to make things much stricter and sounds 
quite reasonable to me the both ways you have used to handle it.


IMHO, this is a good case where I'm sure arch teams could be happy to 
make an exception to the general rule.


BTW, I think this is completely different to the situation being discussed.

Thanks.

--
Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-03 Thread Ferris McCormick
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 13:11 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote:

 
 ok, agreed, this is a valid point. so i would suggest, that maintainers
 of games where this argument applies, come to special agreements with
 the arch teams - or just file bugreports like this:
 
 
 although games-foo/lord-of-bar-2.4.6 has just been bumped, i would like
 to have it stable real soon, as upstream has changed the network
 protocol. i have x86 and amd64 hardware available, and can confirm, that
 the game works nice there; so, if no one objects, i'm gonna mark
 lord-of-bar-2.4.6 stable on x86 and amd64 in two days. i would also like
 to have a shiny sparc keyword, but have no hardware to test. so it would
 be highly appreciated if someone from the sparc team can give the game a
 try.
 
 

I can't speak for all of sparc, of course, but generally we try to
accommodate requests when the package developers explain the situation.
In a case like Eternal Lands, it might turn out that the best solution
would be always to keep it as ~sparc, but that would have the same
effect in practice as a stable keyword, because anyone playing the game
on sparc would know what was going on (I would think).  The key here is
the bug report, and at that point the friendly sparc developers would
work with you. :)
  
 but committing straight to stable on arches where the package wasn't
 even tested is an absolute no-do for me.  
 
  DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email
  with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass.
 
 no, in fact you are the first one that comes up with a valid argument,
 why games sometimes should go to stable almost immediately. sad, but
 true...
 

Regards,
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 01 May 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
 Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
  If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
  vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
  Gentoo dev list to see.

 I would like the council to remind everyone that this is not appropriate
 for any team

doesnt take much to get people in a hissy over nothing

the issue has been taken care of [to the detriment of users]
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-02 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 2 May 2007 16:49:32 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Tuesday 01 May 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
  Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
   If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
   vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
   Gentoo dev list to see.
 
  I would like the council to remind everyone that this is not
  appropriate for any team
 
 doesnt take much to get people in a hissy over nothing

What, people deliberately breaking policy that directly leads to
breaking stable and not having any working ebuilds for a package in
the tree, and then refusing to do anything about it is nothing?

 the issue has been taken care of 

You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council
members who aren't games team members think?

 [to the detriment of users]

How is not having broken packages committed straight to stable
detrimental to users?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 02 May 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  the issue has been taken care of

 You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council
 members who aren't games team members think?

perhaps you should try reading the bug
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-01 Thread Petteri Räty
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
 
 If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
 vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
 Gentoo dev list to see.
 

I would like the council to remind everyone that this is not appropriate
for any team:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176256#c4

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2007-05-01 Thread Jose Luis Rivero (YosWinK)

Petteri Räty wrote:

Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.



I would like the council to remind everyone that this is not appropriate
for any team:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176256#c4



The alpha arch team is *fully* agree with sparc in this case (as many 
others) and hope the council make a clear statement against this kind of 
keywording, which we think can create many more problems than solutions.


We *really* appreciate the great job doing by our games herd (one of the 
best out there) but, in this case, this is not the way to follow.


Thanks.

--
Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2006-05-07 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 07 May 2006 15:31, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 This is your monthly friendly reminder !

sorry for the delay ... the mail server changes broke a bunch of my automated 
scripts :/
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

2006-05-07 Thread Mark Loeser
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
 vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
 Gentoo dev list to see.

I'd like GLEP 48 [1] to be voted on.

Thanks,

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
  http://www.halcy0n.com


pgp7vJhlFQUYZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature