An RFC has now entered Final Comment Period. In 14 days, discussion will
end and the proposal will either be accepted, rejected or withdrawn:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/7
Please visit the above link for discussion.
Summary:
It is shown in some cases that the Tru
A new RFC (request for comment) has been opened here:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/7
Please visit the above link for discussion.
Summary:
It is shown in some cases that the Trusted User role naming leads to
some confusion and misunderstanding in broader contexts o
Hello,
Anyone following the discussion on GitLab [1] can safely ignore this
email, unless they are wishing to participate in the below proposal over
email. In the latter case, please read below.
The discussion on which specific term to use in the respective RFC [1]
has stalled. After a brief disc
On 10/9/21 15:03, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 8/10/21 10:20 pm, Konstantin Gizdov via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> A new RFC (request for comment) has been opened here:
>>
>> https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/7
>>
>>
On 10/10/2021 17:47, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> I had a long reply to the Konstantin's comments, but I deleted it. I
> find the email repeatedly takes statements out of context, or states I
> have made claims I clearly have not, and uses this to draw
> unsubstantiated conclusions. T
Resending PGP signed.
On 09/10/2021 16:15, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 9/10/21 10:07 pm, Alexander Epaneshnikov wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 09:17:05PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public
>> wrote:
>>> I am objecting to this RFC being accepted, as that would mean adopting
On 09/10/2021 16:15, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 9/10/21 10:07 pm, Alexander Epaneshnikov wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 09:17:05PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public
>> wrote:
>>> I am objecting to this RFC being accepted, as that would mean adopting a
>>> CoC I consider su
On 08/10/2021 15:33, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 8/10/21 9:39 pm, Konstantin Gizdov via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> Firstly, you are correct that the current GitLab login requires you to
>> accept the CoC. In an attempt to remedy this situation, given the
>
A new RFC (request for comment) has been opened here:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/7
Please visit the above link for discussion.
Summary:
It is shown in some cases that the Trusted User role naming leads to
some confusion and misunderstanding in broader contexts o
Hi Allan,
Too many things are being touched on here, and it's become a stagnant
discussion where little progress has been made.
Firstly, you are correct that the current GitLab login requires you to
accept the CoC. In an attempt to remedy this situation, given the
current software constraints and
On 22/08/2021 10:10, David Runge via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On August 21, 2021 9:24:20 PM GMT+02:00, Jelle van der Waa via
> arch-dev-public wrote:
>
>> I would love to see someone from our team pick up namcap maintainership,
>> take a look at all the pending patches, bugs on the tracker and
On 1/27/21 1:23 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> I am not sure how this would be taken, but I propose we not only remove
> it from the repos, but we clean the AUR of Chromium and Chrome too and
> we enforce no one uploads any more such variants. This, I believe, is
> the only way the message will be
On 1/27/21 2:43 AM, Massimiliano Torromeo wrote:
> Google might even decide that they don't want to invest resources on the sync
> infrastructure anymore and kill it altogether and it would be their right to
> do so, and not even all that surprising given the amount of dead google
> projects ove
On 1/27/21 1:31 AM, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:
> I disagree on utilzing the AUR for an extended turf-war. Drop it from the
> repositories and people can maintain it in the AUR. It's user contributed
> stuff
> anyway and you are going to battle fork regardless for moderation purpose
On 1/27/21 1:49 AM, Massimiliano Torromeo via arch-dev-public wrote:
> I agree with you 100% Eli.
>
> I find this whole thing of "sticking it" to Google just ridiculous. Like you
> really think they would even care?
No and that's the problem. And even if they don't, we should just give in?
> I m
On 1/27/21 1:35 AM, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> This is histrionics.
No. Please don't start with the judgmental statements. This is my honest
opinion and it's high time you gave me the respect to have my own
opinion. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't automatically make
what I
On 1/27/21 1:31 AM, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:
> I don't think we should spend money on this.
>
EU ombudsman is a free service. Also, legal help can be found pro-bono
for things like this.
--
Regards,
Konstantin
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 1/26/21 9:20 PM, Evangelos Foutras via arch-dev-public wrote:
> If people are still concerned about angering Google, even though
> there's probably nothing illegal about bundling Chrome's keys (when
> also considering the aforementioned permission from 2013) then let's
> just remove the package
On 1/26/21 8:18 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A new bigger and badder build box is now available to all packagers at
> build.archlinux.org. home dirs (but not .cache) have been transferred to
> the new box from dragon and all users should have access.
>
> The
On 1/26/21 8:18 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A new bigger and badder build box is now available to all packagers at
> build.archlinux.org. home dirs (but not .cache) have been transferred to
> the new box from dragon and all users should have access.
>
> The
On 11/14/20 1:42 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 30/10/2020 20:18, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Last year Arch Linux applied to be a mentoring organisation in the
>> Google Summer of Code program. There were quite a few cool projects and
>> lots of keen people. Unfortunately, we were
21 matches
Mail list logo
