On Montag, 10. November 2008 08:21 RedShift wrote:
> Just a warning, generalizing based on these numbers (and on any numbers in
> fact) is very dangerous.
I agree and i think that the stats about the repositories from
http://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics
"forget" the opportunity that
Charly Ghislain wrote:
On Monday 10 November 2008 23:12:49 Hubert Grzeskowiak wrote:
a pacman which sends informations home - unasked?! are you serious? that
would be a data privacy horror! i don't want to have to observe pacman's
traffic the whole time fearing leaks. a feature/bug like that wou
Thought I would give you guys a little update...
Several things have been changed/refactored/re-thought out again
eg
- phases are now just arrays listing the workers, not functions, it's
easier to override and it's cleaner.
- exit codes of all phases/workers are tracked automagically which can
Hi,
I just thought it might be usefull for some to (re)read this article :
Things Worth Knowing About Mailing Lists
http://www.ualberta.ca/~pletendr/list-net.html
Regards,
Charly
Dieter Plaetinck schrieb:
> Hubert Grzeskowiak wrote:
>> Charly Ghislain wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday 10 November 2008 08:21:38 RedShift wrote:
>>>
Just a warning, generalizing based on these numbers (and on any numbers in
fact) is very dangerous.
>>> I agree.
>>> The fact
On Monday 10 November 2008 23:12:49 Hubert Grzeskowiak wrote:
> a pacman which sends informations home - unasked?! are you serious? that
> would be a data privacy horror! i don't want to have to observe pacman's
> traffic the whole time fearing leaks. a feature/bug like that would
> rather raise a
Charly Ghislain schrieb:
> maybe you should continue this discussion in private, unless you think it
> might be revelant for the readers.
>
well, i think it is very relevant to us, but i have to say that the tone
of the discussion isn't very professional, meaning both Aaron and w9ya.
throw ston
Hubert Grzeskowiak wrote:
Charly Ghislain wrote:
On Monday 10 November 2008 08:21:38 RedShift wrote:
Just a warning, generalizing based on these numbers (and on any numbers in
fact) is very dangerous.
I agree.
The fact that data comes from users who volontary installed the pkgst
Charly Ghislain wrote:
> On Monday 10 November 2008 08:21:38 RedShift wrote:
>> Just a warning, generalizing based on these numbers (and on any numbers in
>> fact) is very dangerous.
>
> I agree.
> The fact that data comes from users who volontary installed the pkgstat
> package make the results
maybe you should continue this discussion in private, unless you think it
might be revelant for the readers.
On Monday 10 November 2008 08:21:38 RedShift wrote:
> Just a warning, generalizing based on these numbers (and on any numbers in
> fact) is very dangerous.
I agree.
The fact that data comes from users who volontary installed the pkgstat
package make the results biased.
The best 'statistical' way
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:44 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is a problem with the servers and the load becuase of the community
> repo, please let's talk about that and how the community can help. I was
> reacting to input that was already forming a basis for using a bot's output
>
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Loui Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:44:20AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
> > O.k well try to not be so strident with things like "It's stupid"
> when
> > someone tells you about reasons and goals and results. That may be
> "history"
> > le
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am truly sorry if this annoys you enough to call discussing the history
> of
> > earlier AUR stuff: "it's stupid", but it really does have bearing.rig
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:44:20AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
> O.k well try to not be so strident with things like "It's stupid" when
> someone tells you about reasons and goals and results. That may be "history"
> lesson, but it also may just hold something you have not considered because
> you did n
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTE
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am truly sorry if this annoys you enough to call discussing the history of
> earlier AUR stuff: "it's stupid", but it really does have bearing.right now.
We can talk about the past until we turn blue if you want, but it's
not go
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The TU system was a DIRECT outgrowth of the earlier efforts to find a
>>
On Montag, 10. November 2008 08:28 Allan McRae wrote:
> Yes, but it better than making conclusions based on no numbers.
That is right.-)
What i'm wondering a bit is that there is no release number in "pkgstats -s".
I don't want to make it more difficult as necessary and i don't want to
critize
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The TU system was a DIRECT outgrowth of the earlier efforts to find a
> place
> > for users with significant output to be hosted BY the archlinux system
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The TU system was a DIRECT outgrowth of the earlier efforts to find a place
> for users with significant output to be hosted BY the archlinux systems
This is about the hundredth time I've seen the "this is how it used to
be" argum
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Loui Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:51:20PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
> >> the community repo is still a mess. it seems the TUs just put in what
> >> they
Yes Francios I agree, and you are Firmicus seem to be a more moderating
tone. Thank you VERY much for that.
However Loui *is* suggesting coercing/forcing TUs to do things based on the
voting system. It is part of another concurrent thread called "Packages in
Community and votes" that he started.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Loui Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:51:20PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
>> the community repo is still a mess. it seems the TUs just put in what
>> they like not what is requested by the community. there are still
>> many packages with
w9ya a écrit :
And what you have done below is called taking/quoting something out of
context to change it's meaning.
i.e. The important things to remember is that the TU's make up the
rules AND that the voting system was put in place after assurances
that it would NEVER be used to make decis
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:41 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And what you have done below is called taking/quoting something out of
> context to change it's meaning.
>
> i.e. The important things to remember is that the TU's make up the rules AND
> that the voting system was put in place afte
And what you have done below is called taking/quoting something out of
context to change it's meaning.
i.e. The important things to remember is that the TU's make up the rules AND
that the voting system was put in place after assurances that it would NEVER
be used to make decisions for ANY TU. (i.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Um,,, ehem;
>>
>> I would like to remind everyone that the TU system was NOT originated solely
>> to be based on votes, in fact there was no voting until much mor
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um,,, ehem;
>
> I would like to remind everyone that the TU system was NOT originated solely
> to be based on votes, in fact there was no voting until much more recently.
>
This is called evolution
( 1. A gradual process in which
Um,,, ehem;
I would like to remind everyone that the TU system was NOT originated solely
to be based on votes, in fact there was no voting until much more recently.
Also, when the voting was added to the TU system the community and TUs were
SPECIFICALLY told that the voting system would NEVER be
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:51:20PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
> the community repo is still a mess. it seems the TUs just put in what
> they like not what is requested by the community. there are still
> many packages with more than 50 votes waiting in unsupported AUR. Maybe
> a monthly pkg move i
31 matches
Mail list logo
