Dear all,
Thanks to Klieber and Pylon, the gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en CVS
directory is now open to all developers, meaning that any Gentoo
dev may now create new projects and sub-projects at will. Of course,
the open permissions means that a dev may also modify projects at will,
so the usual rul
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:57:44 +0100
Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It'd perhaps make sense to extend the DTD for metadata.xml, so that the
> tag has 'type' and 'organisation' attributes. This would
> allow tools to tell the difference between an entry for a Gentoo
> maintainer, and a
On Monday 11 July 2005 00:07, Bryan Oestergaard wrote:
> It's a great pleasure to welcome our newest developer, Scott Shawcroft
> to the team.
Welcome Scott.. did you already subscribed to your local conspiration?
Search for the nearest "Gentoo's conspirations" office! :P
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> If the developer shortage was not as big as it is, we could probably
> really do something with your proposition.
Then why not lay the ground work, documentation-wise, now? Then as you
add on developers they have a nice re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
> Ah, okay. You're talking about patch review. Now this makes sense.
> I've always considered the Verified status to be indicative that a third
> party has been able to reproduce the bug, not that a fix has been
> "approved". My mistak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:32:44 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > Again, Gentoo is not a large corporation or Debian.
> |
> | I don't see how Gentoo's status (or rather lack thereof) as a
> | corporation
Hi all.
It's a great pleasure to welcome our newest developer, Scott Shawcroft
to the team.
Scott is joining Gentoo to help with all things Bugday. He already has a
lot of great ideas that I'm sure we'll all see soon :)
Besides working on Bugday related things, Scott is also an upstream
develope
On 15:57 Sun 10 Jul , Daniel Drake wrote:
> How to give us lots of yummy info:
> - How to apply patches
> - How to use strace
> - How to identify a configure failure
> - and how to upload config.log
> - How to use gdb, for C apps
> - Using valgrind?
> etc
Tigger wrote a doc about writing
Shyam Mani wrote:
> As for the rest of the points you've brought up, did you have time to
> pen down answers as well? If so, could we have a look at them please?
> Some answers are obvious, but some others aren't and these points are
> quite valid and do need to be in the doc.
I haven't written an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/2005 08:27 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> As you know, I've been meaning to write one of these for a while. I've been
> keeping a list of topics I think should be mentioned. Stripping out the ones
> you have covered, here's what I have left:
>
>
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:08:41AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> "Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified and peer
> reviewed. It should be verified by the reporter or another user. If the
> reporter or another user are unable or unwilling to verify the fix, the
> Team Lead
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> I'm assuming that this would only apply to cases where the dev has
provided a fix (in most cases I assume they would have reproduced the
problem). The reporter's test would have the benefits mentioned above,
and if the Team Lead tested, they could review the fix for tech
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 09:14 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Are you offering me a job? ;)
Are you applying for one?
No, really - I think the basic idea in your proposal is great. But
Gentoo is a community based open source software project, worked on by
volunteers in their spare time. I think you
On Sunday 10 July 2005 17:32, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> I don't see how you could prove that assumption. If you can, please do so.
You see more people ranting that bugs aren't resolved, or more people happy
because their bugs are resolved?
I'm sorry but I can say at least for myself that most of th
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:32:44 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Again, Gentoo is not a large corporation or Debian.
|
| I don't see how Gentoo's status (or rather lack thereof) as a
| corporation or Debian has anything to do with encouraging peer review.
You're taking methods
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Good point. See my reply to Jon Portnoy for the latest revision of the
> idea that would apply to everyone as an optional 'best practice'.
Again, it doesn't really work like this. The groups you describe are different
in nature, and certain procedures suit some groups bett
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that:
> |
> | "Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verifie
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that:
|
| "Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified and
| peer reviewed. It should be verified by the reporter or another user.
|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris White wrote:
> Doc is still here:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml
>
> After a good ammount of user input the bugzilla doc has been updated. The
> new version uses ggdb3 instead of g for debugging and contains a new section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Drake wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical
>>products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs?
>
> You're now significantly altering your proposal, from s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be
>>verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done.
>>
>
>
> That's not a prob
Hi Chris,
Chris White wrote:
> Doc is still here:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml
I've just read over it in full. It looks good - thanks for writing it.
As you know, I've been meaning to write one of these for a while. I've been
keeping a list of topics I think should be men
On Sunday 10 July 2005 22:55, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical
> products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs?
Portage doesn't have a team lead as such. All bug traffic is delivered to all
members via email thou
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical
> products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs?
You're now significantly altering your proposal, from something that affects
almost everyone, to something that affects only some '
Doc is still here:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml
After a good ammount of user input the bugzilla doc has been updated. The new
version uses ggdb3 instead of g for debugging and contains a new section on
testing ebuilds. Thanks goes to robbat2 for his commentary on what to im
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
> To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be
> verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done.
>
That's not a problem, that's an opinion.
I'm not at all convinced that not having every bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>> But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
>> party before marking it done.
>
>
> That's reasonable, but I don't see that party being a Team Lead or even
> a dev. If there's a bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
> a) what would be the point of the reporter also being the verifier as
> far as confirming that the bug is real and not a PEBKAC error?
Sometimes devs do clever things to their systems that end-users aren't
aware of, or they test the fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> Dear Nathan,
>
> On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:04 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
>>party before marking it done.
>
>
> Great! Thank you for your offe
R Hill posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sun, 10
Jul 2005 01:39:18 -0600:
> Marco Matthies wrote:
>> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>> The person reporting the bug can reopen the bug, as he/she is in a
>> perfect position to test the fix.
>
> Just a thought I've had from time to time - why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>
> If you have an (USB?) adapter, which works with linux-wlan-ng, but not
> with orinoco-cvs, I would like to hear about that too.
I have a Flybook with a Prism 3 usb adapter and I have been succesfully
using linux-wlang-
Dear Nathan,
On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:04 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
> party before marking it done.
Great! Thank you for your offer to review our bugfixes. Please start
right away.
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Brix
--
Henr
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 12:58 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> Stupid question .. why does webapps.eclass have SLOT=${PVR} ?
If you're running a hosting server, and have many customers using the
same app, it may not be practical to bump them all at the same time.
* They may have different busy per
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 20:10 +0200, Radoslaw Stachowiak wrote:
> On 7/5/05, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd like to introduce the following security policy for web-based apps.
>
> Why only web-based apps? What about other tools and apps exposed to the
> network?
That's for
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 00:30 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Hmm, what's the criteria to decide if something falls under this policy
> or not? Package category, maintainership, dependency on webserver, ...?
>
> Marius
The only criteria I can suggest is that any package which is maintained
by the web-
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:12 +0100, David Morgan wrote:
> > > 1. The Gentoo package's maintainer will identify one *named* contact
> > >UPSTREAM for security-related matters, and one named general contact
> > >UPSTREAM (as a fallback for when the security contact is
> > >unreachable).
>
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:52 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > 3. This information will be checked every three months to ensure it
> >remains valid.
>
> Are you volunteering to do 3? If not, who will?
I'm proposing that 3. is the responsibility of the webapps herd
Strategic and Operational Leads
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> (a) Its not a waste of time, and it is a FACT that peer review improves
> quality.
I don't think anyone is disputing that it would be a beneficial concept, in
terms of improving quality and feedback.
However the suggestion you are making is really not practical in our
dev
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:40 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Yeah, having it in metadata.xml would make more sense.
We can do that.
It'd perhaps make sense to extend the DTD for metadata.xml, so that the
tag has 'type' and 'organisation' attributes. This would
allow tools to tell the differenc
Marco Matthies wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
The person reporting the bug can reopen the bug, as he/she is in a
perfect position to test the fix.
Just a thought I've had from time to time - why can't people other than
the reporter reopen a resolved bug report? I'm thinking that there are
cas
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
living. I know this fact: Sometimes the developer doesn't realise what
the actual problem is. Sometimes its because the end-user didn't
communicate well. Sometimes its because the developer is being an ass
(we've all been guilty of this). *That* is why verification should b
41 matches
Mail list logo
