On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:04:13PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote:
> On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:50 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> > Yeah, we defiantly could use a beefy new server for CVS/SVN. Just make
> > sure you chat with robbat2/Pylon on the specifics for the requirements.
> > I believe the mai
* Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/11/19 22:50 -0600]:
> Yeah, we defiantly could use a beefy new server for CVS/SVN. Just make
> sure you chat with robbat2/Pylon on the specifics for the requirements.
> I believe the main thing they wanted was lots of ram.
CVS/SVN doesn't need much CPU loa
On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:50 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Yeah, we defiantly could use a beefy new server for CVS/SVN. Just make
> sure you chat with robbat2/Pylon on the specifics for the requirements.
> I believe the main thing they wanted was lots of ram.
As discussed before, the new dev
Corey Shields wrote:
> On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:25 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
>
>>In any event, do we need a new server anyway? We actually do have some
>>money that could be spent on such things, and the CVS server is really
>>high on the list of for which I, personally, would be more than
Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:25 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
>
>>Kurt Lieber wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 04:42:41PM CST]
>>
>>>On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>>>If the requirement is for r/o CVS access to the same CVS server that the
>>>pure-
On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:25 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> In any event, do we need a new server anyway? We actually do have some
> money that could be spent on such things, and the CVS server is really
> high on the list of for which I, personally, would be more than willing
> to spend it.
>
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:25 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Kurt Lieber wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 04:42:41PM CST]
> > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > If the requirement is for r/o CVS access to the same CVS server that the
> > pure-blooded developers us
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 04:47:37PM CST]
> OK, fine. Devrel does not have an established track record of retiring
> devs who are otherwise inactive.
Just as an aside, I've seen scores (if not more) of devs retired within
the last couple of months, so I think that problem is currentl
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 04:42:41PM CST]
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> If the requirement is for r/o CVS access to the same CVS server that the
> pure-blooded developers use (sorry, couldn't resist) then it may require
> upgrades to our
On Sunday 20 November 2005 08:46, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:23:41PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > B) What should be done with the @(subdomain_to_be_determined) email after
> > an AT becomes a full dev (and presumably gets a @gentoo.org address)? For
> > how long?
>
> this
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 19:02 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> For now, I don't want to rsync more than every 30 minutes (concerns of
> overloading the main cvs server). Pylon has mentioned that the newer
> version of cvs has better commit hooks that may allow for more of a live
> replication effect,
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:26:20 +
Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Drop the idea of giving the arch testers an email alias altogether
>
> * Change @subdomain.gentoo.org to @gentoo.org.
>
> * Create an entirely new domain
>
And fourthly:
* Give those arch testers a temporary [EMAI
Lares Moreau wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 18:13 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
>
>>is the 25-55 minute lag good enough?
> It may need to be good enough. Personally I would like to have < 5-7
> min. That way when I'm working with a dev, I can keep up to speed with
> her/him without having to res
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:05:18PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> And yes, we probably could/should have said something
> about lark earlier, but didn't catch that before hand.
Shit happens (lark). The appearance/concerns of cvs (specifically the
"this won't fly if it's single key") is what I'm
On Saturday 19 November 2005 04:09 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> Subdomain complaints, fine, I'm not even going to argue that one at
> this point, the actual cvs enabling, you should've known it was
> coming- being surprised by it sucks, but so does trying to revert it
> because it surprised you.
the
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 18:13 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> is the 25-55 minute lag good enough?
It may need to be good enough. Personally I would like to have < 5-7
min. That way when I'm working with a dev, I can keep up to speed with
her/him without having to resort to an overlay and emailing
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:04:44PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > The problem is in detection- an infra issue that could be solved by
> > either allowing normal devrel people to run the detection scripts
> > themselves (rather then asking infra to do so)
>
> First I've heard of this request. Has
Lares Moreau wrote:
> I personally do not need Revision histories, I can't speak for other
> ATs. Rsync with 30min delay is a noted improvement over the standard
> rsync policy. Does this also allow us to sync to main rotation mirroes
> is that already overstressed? I ask because IIRC it may ta
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 23:46 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > E) What criteria must an AT meet to be able to receive the shortened
> >probationary when moving on to becoming a full dev?
>
> they express interest in becoming a full dev at which point they enter
> the normal 'becoming a dev' recr
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:06:41PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote:
> On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:19 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative
> > > nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other
> > > things.
> >
> > Frankly
Brian Harring wrote:
>>What was posted two months ago is not the same as was posted a day
>>before the vote. I didn't see a problem with the original glep from an
>>infra POV, thus why I didn't say much about it.
>
>
> Email wise, you're right- the basic issue of anoncvs/cvs ro access for
> ATs
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:23:41PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> B) What should be done with the @(subdomain_to_be_determined) email after an
>AT becomes a full dev (and presumably gets a @gentoo.org address)? For how
>long?
this is in the GLEP ... it clearly states that it will become a fo
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 15:27 -0700, Tres Melton wrote:
> I think that there should be other sub-domains too but the current
> people should be left alone under a grandfather clause. That would also
> help to see what people are working on what.
>
> staff.gentoo.org forum staff
> amd64
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:56 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> So, can other arch testers please pitch in with their $.02? If we gave you
> rsync instead of CVS, would that be sufficient? Or do you need the
> revision history, etc. of CVS?
>
> And, any objections to a ~30 minute delay between CVS<->thi
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:46:51PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > It's a crazy notion, but y'all could've commented in the *TWO* months
> > that this glep has been percolating, "yo, what do you want from an
> > infra standpoint?".
> >
> > Or implemented anoncvs in the m
Lance Albertson wrote:
I see this as something that devrel would take care of since they
already do this for developers. They already have the tools/access to
the places for such things. Would rather not have another set of folks
with that access.
So do I. Hint: Homer Parker is a devrel member
Tres Melton wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:47 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>
>>OK, fine. Devrel does not have an established track record of retiring
>>devs who are otherwise inactive. Please fix this. Please also get an
>>agreement from them that they're going to be willing to take on the
>>ad
On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:40 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> Easier, and saner to just plain drop the subdomain notion. Avoids the
> whole gentoo personel first class/second class issue first of all,
> second avoids infra aliasing annoyances.
I agree with this.
--
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux In
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:59:46PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Sorry for two mails in a row.. but out of curiosity, instead of using
> 30 minute rsync, why not 30 minute mirror of cvs? KDE does this fairly
> well, they even have it something like every 5 minutes, is there any
> reaso
On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:19 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative
> > nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other
> > things.
>
> Frankly I think you're exagerating here.
What about the end-user headache of havi
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:47 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> OK, fine. Devrel does not have an established track record of retiring
> devs who are otherwise inactive. Please fix this. Please also get an
> agreement from them that they're going to be willing to take on the
> additional load of these a
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:52:08PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
> Devrel doesn't have much issues in actually retiring a dev from where
> I'm sitting.
Then I guess we'll disagree on this.
> The problem is in detection- an infra issue that could be solved by
> either allowing norma
Sorry for two mails in a row.. but out of curiosity, instead of using
30 minute rsync, why not 30 minute mirror of cvs? KDE does this fairly
well, they even have it something like every 5 minutes, is there any
reason mirrored cvs is not possible//feasible? is this something svn
has gotten better at
On 11/19/05, Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > Funy, I was just pondering that myself... is authenticated rsync
> > really possible?
>
> Yes, it has its own auth mechanism. We actually use it for some automated
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Funy, I was just pondering that myself... is authenticated rsync
> really possible?
Yes, it has its own auth mechanism. We actually use it for some automated
cron jobs that we have.
> The only downside to this that I
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:47:37PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:30:53PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Infra doesn't even do retirement beyond when _devrel_ asks them to. If
> > that process is slow, ask for help and someone will chip in and improve
> > it
Brian Harring wrote:
> Frankly I think you're exagerating here.
>
> You're seriously telling me it's going to cause you massive
> adminstration nightmares adding an attribute to ldap to specify the
> user comes in from a subdomain? Where's the nightmare in admining it?
> It _should_ just be
19.11.2005, 23:19:41, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:57PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
>> I would have preferred that the people involved with this could
>> have directly asked infra if this would work for us. That's a simple
>> request that I did not see from these folks.
On 11/19/05, Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
>
> So, in the interests of trying to find a solution to this particular
> problem...
>
>
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:30:53PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
> Infra doesn't even do retirement beyond when _devrel_ asks them to. If
> that process is slow, ask for help and someone will chip in and improve
> it (mainly to minimize bottleneck involved).
OK, fine. Devrel does no
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:27:52PM -0700, Tres Melton wrote:
> staff.gentoo.org forum staff
> amd64-at.gentoo.org Arch testers for the amd64 platform
> contributer.gentoo.orgPeople that donate $$$ to Gentoo
> retired.gentoo.orgA thanks for helping
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
So, in the interests of trying to find a solution to this particular
problem...
As I understand the GLEP, the main requirement here is to give t
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
>
I'm not sure that this topic is worthy of a flame-fest, but anyway..
still reading. :
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:03:58PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:51:15PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Stop pointing at one interpretation of it that sucks, when the glep
> > _does_ leave it open to you how to implement it. It's a waste of
> > people's t
On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:18 pm, Patrick McLean wrote:
> This thread has had a disturbing amount of bickering, and there appears
> to be a bit of a sentiment that arch testers don't contribute anything
> more than a normal user. I have filed and commented on more bugs in the
> week since I be
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
> > Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit
> > but more confusion).
>
> One (important
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:57PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
> > Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said:
> > a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted
> > in in the first meeting.
>
> Minor? What you're asking for will
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit
but more confusion).
The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture test
On Saturday 19 November 2005 01:05 pm, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Corey Shields schrieb:
> | Ahh, ok thanks for clearing that up.
> |
> | Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
> | council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then
> | push it
> | thro
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:03 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> I'm going to come up with an implementation plan that
> looks something like the following:
>
> * all SSH keys and email addresses for arch testers will auto-expire after
> 60 days. If an arch tester needs to have continued access, a gento
On 19/11/05, George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/11/05, Sven Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> > of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
> >
> Anything that makes us d
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
I'm a AT for x86, and I am still reading the thread.
That being said, Do I feel it is Necessary for me to get a @g.o
account? Plain and simpl
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for
being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their
work.
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still read
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:51:15PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
> I'll again point out that the glep doesn't actually mandate it, states
> it's the lowest common denominator that's acceptable.
And I'll point out that there's more than one issue that we're concerned
with here.
> S
On 19/11/05, Sven Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
>
Anything that makes us do our job better and makes our lives easier is
a good thing. Tha
Thanks hparker for letting me know about this part of the thread and a
call for opinions from ATs.
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a
specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve
the quality of the ebuilds
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said:
> a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted
> in in the first meeting.
Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative
nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain add
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Corey Shields schrieb:
| On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
|
|>No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and >>taken
|>to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the
|>council aske
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:14:03PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100 or thereabouts, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > Isn't this an issue that also exists for the Gentoo developers in general?
>
> Not as much since we can track things like last cvs commit, last login to
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
> Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit
> but more confusion).
The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a
specific pr
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100 or thereabouts, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > Now, the same question for email -- how do we manage aliases, especially
> > for inactive, retired and semi-retired arch testers? We could track usage
>
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> Now, the same question for email -- how do we manage aliases, especially
> for inactive, retired and semi-retired arch testers? We could track usage
> in logs, but between mailing list subscriptions, bugzilla notifications and
> all so
Simon Stelling wrote:
> I've never said (that I think that) the majority supports GLEP 41. In
> fact, i think the vast majority bluntly doesn't care about it at all, as
> they aren't affected by it anyway. However, of those who gave feedback
> on the first draft, a majority said "we need a subdoma
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
> It suggests using a single account and placing an SSH key for each arch
> tester in that account's ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file.
text in question
"Get read-onl
Kurt Lieber wrote:
However, the council asked for it, and so it was changed. And the council
didn't ask for this on his own, they were just reflecting the majority of
devs, so we'll have to accept that.
If there's one thing I've learned in my tenure with this project is that
there is no such t
Kurt Lieber wrote:
Because, in practice, this doesn't happen. Accounts (or, in this case,
email addresses) stay around until someone gets enough of a bee under their
bonnet to do somethig about it. Since there's no pain or cost for the
AT/HT project lead, there's no reason for them to be vigila
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Lance Albertson wrote:
>>I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP
>>would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that
>>even the council would be curious about that question as well.
>
>
> We have an infra team member in the council.
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Lance Albertson wrote:
>
>
>>Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on
>>their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with
>>ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You
>>shouldn't feel bad for them
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:07:01PM +0100 or thereabouts, Simon Stelling
wrote:
> However, the council asked for it, and so it was changed. And the council
> didn't ask for this on his own, they were just reflecting the majority of
> devs, so we'll have to accept that.
If there's one thing I've lea
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:57:41PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> | There are no provisions for key management and I cannot see an easy way to
> | handle it. It's easy to add new keys, but how do we clean out old keys for
> | retired arch testers? (including arch testers that "retir
Kurt Lieber wrote:
* Drop the idea of giving the arch testers an email alias altogether
I don't see what benefit this provides, to be honest. It's not much of a
spiff and if someone is signing up to help with testing just for the
email address, they're not here for the right reasons anyway
Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
> >
> >>Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
> >>council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it
> >>through.
On Saturday 19 November 2005 09:20 am, Corey Shields wrote:
> couple of council members I have talked to didn't have time to catch up on
I take this part back, turns out they aren't council members and I thought
they were.. my bad.
--
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kurt Lieber schrieb:
| Ignoring the yellow star issue, there are a few implementation
| concerns/impossibilities with GLEP 41 in its current form.
|
| For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
| It suggests using a sin
Lance Albertson wrote:
> Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on
> their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with
> ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You
> shouldn't feel bad for them because you would require th
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Cut the kabbale crap : we felt bad about delaying the GLEP vote for one
> more month, and we also felt bad about pushing the decision while some
> people already complained that revised version wasn't published soon
> enough. The meetings logs are quite clear on this. So we
On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:46 am, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > That's quite an indictment. You've skipped right past the notion that
> > perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism. As
> > somebody who's been part of devrel, and thus the recipient of exa
Ignoring the yellow star issue, there are a few implementation
concerns/impossibilities with GLEP 41 in its current form.
For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
It suggests using a single account and placing an SSH key for each arch
tester in that account's ~/.
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
>
>>Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
>>council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it
>>through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics.
>
> That
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 10:38 -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:16:06AM -0700, Lares Moreau wrote:
> > Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
> > subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht
> > @docs.g.o for document persons
> > @i
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:16:06AM -0700, Lares Moreau wrote:
> Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
> subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht
> @docs.g.o for document persons
> @infra.g.o for infrastucture
> etc...
>
On Saturday 19 November 2005 17:16, Lares Moreau wrote:
> Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
> subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht
> @docs.g.o for document persons
> @infra.g.o for infrastucture
> etc...
> @s
OK, enough has been said about the current problems that some people
have with GLEP 41. I'm not going to belabor that. Instead, I'm going to
ask for one of three changes. What I object to most strongly is the notion
that we're classifying devs based on their relative worth to the project
and ass
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 21:17 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> As an AT... albiet a very busy/cannot help as much as I'd like one...
>
> The only useful thing I see in here is ro-cvs access. This
> facilitates testing by allowing the tester to get the ebuilds as they
> are committed, instead of syncing
On Saturday 19 November 2005 00:18, Scott Stoddard wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> Being relatively new to the team, I speak with a bit of naivet'e about
> the whole thing, but doesn't that seem to make the most
Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht
@docs.g.o for document persons
@infra.g.o for infrastucture
etc...
@staff.g.o for non-specific staff
@g.o for dev
On Saturday 19 November 2005 12:00, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one month ago)
> was that the GLEP would be approved, pending a list of changes. During
> last month, nobody raised his voice to say this list of changes was
> fundamentally flawed. Wh
Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
> Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
> council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it
> through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics.
That's quite an indictment. You've
Jakub Moc wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 02:11:19AM CST]
> Grrrmhhh, was it so much unclear? I mean: "stable on x86" definitely
> belongs to changelogs, while "stable on x86, thanks Jim for opening a
> keywording bug, Jack and Jim for testing and Joe for reminding me five
> times to mark it finally stabl
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:57:07PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> You can't reasonably expect all Gentoo devs to read through unfiltered IRC
> logs to figure out what discussion went on.
As was just pointed out to me on IRC, a meeting summary was apparently
posted to gentoo-dev which I
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:31:23AM +0100 or thereabouts, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> What I find disturbing here is that nobody found the issue interesting
> enough to read the October Council decisions as to what was needed to be
> changed for the GLEP to be approved.
I think there's some validity t
On Saturday 19 November 2005 20:09, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Now, we might we perhaps move the focus to more important issues jstubbs
> > mentioned in his last email, expecting that any implementation of the now
> > approved GLEP wrt the email addresses won't be pushed in a simi
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:09:55 +0100 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 75% of his email is about things that were in the original GLEP. Why
| didn't he raise his voice at that time ?
Oh, lots of people objected to the original GLEP. There was a rather
long thread about it on -dev. They wen
Jakub Moc wrote:
> Erm, what exactly could have been discussed, the revised GLEP being submitted
> about a day before the council meeting? Are you expecting people to hang on
> email 24/7?
No, but I surely expect people interested in the discussion to read the
last month council meeting decisions
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:00:31 +0100 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one month ago)
| was that the GLEP would be approved, pending a list of changes. During
| last month, nobody raised his voice to say this list of changes was
| funda
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> What discussion? As both myself and Grant pointed out on this list
> before the meeting, there wasn't any. Yet the council decided to go
> ahead and approve the thing anyway...
Discussion and intermediary decision.
The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, o
19.11.2005, 10:31:23, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Corey Shields wrote:
>>>Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
>>>people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
>>>exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:31:23 +0100 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| You can't just ignore the discussion and the iterim decisions and
| complain afterwards when the decision is taken.
What discussion? As both myself and Grant pointed out on this list
before the meeting, there wasn't any
Corey Shields wrote:
>>Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
>>people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
>>exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
>>clear answer...
>
> Jakub++ Nobody in infra
On Saturday 19 November 2005 17:39, Duncan wrote:
> 8) Infra has expressed reluctance, and asks the question if we accept this
> one, where might it end? Legitimate question, but AFAICT, the question is
> no longer whether this is a good idea or not as it's already been decided
> to go ahead, but
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
