Alec Warner wrote:
> C. No real standard on any other fora. I don't need a GLEP to add
> someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my
> project's IRC channel. I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my
> mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project
Josh Saddler wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> [. . .]
>
> Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one
> *become* a "contributor" to get these rights?
>
> This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.
As
Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> thus that developer can request
> write access for them. It's worked like that for at least two
> years...
I did that and devrel asked me to write a GLEP. If you can show me another
way to do it, I would like to hear about it! I have two contributors with
ebuild quiz here
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 10:53:44PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I'm adding a new key, "M" for "moribund", that will identify GLEPs that
> have been accepted, but never implemented. If there's any sign of life
> in such a GLEP, I'll happily change the "M" back to an "A".
>
> Here's the changes t
Thanks to atarus, I've updated a number of GLEPs:
40 (arch teams) Now marked Final
44 (manifest2)Now marked Final
8 (adotp-a-dev) Now adopted by tcort, & marked Final since it exists without
any clear complaints by the community
21 (package sets) Now adopted by antarus
I've also marked
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 23:11 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> I'd have to agree with you on that. I understand the appeal of
exciting press releases but there were over 75 GCC 4.1 bugs still open
for problems in *~arch* when the decision was made to go stable. Even
now ther
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
If you don't care whether a package is stable or not, just let the arch
team go ahead and do what they need to do to stabilise when they wish
to. The role of package maintainer has nothing to do with
stabilisation, which is the preserve of the arch teams.
Um, sure it does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
[. . .]
Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one
*become* a "contributor" to get these rights?
This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
On 04/09/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
General SMTP/ESMTP error.
[... crap received after posting to -dev ...]
Whoever has bodged their fetchmail configuration, please fix it ASAP!
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciao,
On 03/09/06, Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
This is al
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
> bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
> devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
>
> This is also a submission for the new
Hi,
as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
This is also a submission for the new council when it meets.
Best regards,
Stuart Herbert wrote:
GCC I suspect is surrounded by more confusion. Either the package
maintainers or the arch teams could have made an announcement giving
fair warning; alas, neither did.
It was announced on June 27th and was in more than one issue of the GWN
since then.
--de.
--
gentoo
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:02:55 -0400:
> I asked each member of the portage team (minus Marius, whom I did find
> on irc) what they were up to in terms of working on things. Zac
> informed me that 2.1.1 would be out of rc st
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 07:41 +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
>> its developers. Edgar's call was targeted mostly at releng and QA teams, who
>> should poke developers to decrease number of similar problems.
>
> Sorry, but Release Engineering has no wishes to become the "
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 17:40 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > in the end
> > GCC-4.1 going stable is up to releng and arch teams (heck it doesn't
> > technically have to go stable on all arches). So who "screwed up" in
> > this case?
>
> Well, fo
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 07:41 +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
> its developers. Edgar's call was targeted mostly at releng and QA teams, who
> should poke developers to decrease number of similar problems.
Sorry, but Release Engineering has no wishes to become the "Gentoo
Developer Babysitting Pro
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 07:15 +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
> But to be honest, stabilization of packages was not my point. ((BTW, stable
> X.org, KDE or GNOME would IMO delay the release for a week, so users wouldn't
> need to upgrade in such a short time frame - but that's what I think))
Peopl
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 23:11 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
>
> > we're understaffed, partly - and this is my very personal opinion - the
> > problem is that releasing with GCC 4.x has been rushed
>
> I'd have to agree with you on that. I understand the appeal of exciting
> pre
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 22:55 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 9/2/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;)
>
> I don't think that that's good thing to be saying to our users.
>
> We didn't need 3000 more developers ... we just needed to give
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 12:34 +0200, Edgar Hucek wrote:
> Apeal on extended testing :
>
> Developer, please test things more carefull before you
> release it.
I hear this (pardon my "French") BULLSHIT all the time from our
developers. Look, people, I asked multiple times for assistance with
testi
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:44:32 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because the thought that stable is always "stable" or that because
> > we released things are "stable" is incorrect ;)
>
> You're not supposed to break the stable
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:22:37 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > For this stuff, add a comment to the metadata.xml file. Don't do it
> > in this less than obvious way.
>
> arch teams for example will still contact me then for stabilizing, I
> do not want
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> For this stuff, add a comment to the metadata.xml file. Don't do it in
> this less than obvious way.
arch teams for example will still contact me then for stabilizing, I do not
want that. jeeves and herdstat do not support comments and the metadata is
not often read direct
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because the thought that stable is always "stable" or that because we
released things are "stable" is incorrect ;)
You're not supposed to break the stable tree; that surely must include
stabilising a compiler (which is the _default_ for new inst
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
in the end
GCC-4.1 going stable is up to releng and arch teams (heck it doesn't
technically have to go stable on all arches). So who "screwed up" in
this case?
Well, for a package like PHP, the package maintainers take
responsibility for ensuri
"Dan Meltzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:23:31 -0400:
>> > The gcc-4.1 stabilization bug has been open for a month and a half.
>>
>> > Thats fairly good notice...
>>
>> Only to the folks who knew about that bug. For the wider community
>
I asked each member of the portage team (minus Marius, whom I did find
on irc) what they were up to in terms of working on things. Zac
informed me that 2.1.1 would be out of rc status on the 8th and that
users could expect a few new features and many bugfixes.
>From the NEWS file in svn:
* Profil
Jeff Rollin wrote:
>
> It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or how
> can it happen that there are already know bugs in the
> stable distro ?
>
> Just like to make the point that if something requires a dependency in
> ~arch (unstable), then it isn't/shouldn't be in arch (stable).
>
Beca
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 10:36 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And no one has implemented any kind of solution.
> >
> > You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for
> > folks to actually make an anno
It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or howcan it happen that there are already know bugs in thestable distro ?Just like to make the point that if something requires a dependency in ~arch (unstable), then it isn't/shouldn't be in arch (stable).
Bryan Ãstergaard wrote:
> Ok, let me see if I can get this straight.. You're saying that
> maintainer-needed requires less communication overhead compared to
> ebuilds with maintainers assigned? And that maintainer-needed is
> therefore better than ebuilds having maintainers.
agreed. I prefer to f
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And no one has implemented any kind of solution.
>
> You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for
> folks to actually make an announcement in the first place?
>
> I asked for what has become GLEP
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And no one has implemented any kind of solution.
You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for
folks to actually make an announcement in the first place?
I asked for what has become GLEP 42 because we do have a problem
r
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Then you should not have committed it - as a dev it is your
> responsibility to test any ebuilds your commit. There's nothing
> stopping you doing the normal checks on the ebuild, even if you can't
> read Hebrew. For example you should verify whether the '-j1' is really
>
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 00:31 +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We'll also need to sort out a process for handling complaints against
> > developers from the folks they help. Doesn't matter how well we make
> > it clear that these folks are "independent"; their
On Sunday 03 September 2006 13:57, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
> > tree without taking responsibility for it.
>
> sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I cannot
> test the thing. Fu
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:57:10PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
> > tree without taking responsibility for it.
> sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I cannot test
> the th
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:57:10 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
> > tree without taking responsibility for it.
> sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I
> cann
On Sunday 03 September 2006 15:02, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> You're wrong here. What I'm inclined about is that we had (leastwise) a
> fourteen day short notice to when the releaase snapshot would be taken. To
> the end of this time frame there was another one that we'd release with GCC
> 4.x. Even i
On Sunday 03 September 2006 00:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> And waiting other 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months won't change the thing. Why? Because
> we have _no_ accessibility team right now.
Well, the bug is assigned to williamh, who is not /completely/ inactive. I
wonder, if only 37 commits in
Either MTA or MUA brokeness. Another email I have to send a second time. :(
On Sunday 03 September 2006 00:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> And waiting other 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months won't change the thing. Why? Because
> we have _no_ accessibility team right now.
Well, the bug is assigned to
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
>> If the users are too lazy to read the documentation, why should we care
>> about them?
>
> Because we risk that Gentoo may receive the "user-UN-friendly" label and
> become irrelevant in the long run? I know it ain't gonna happen, but still.
Well, that might be the c
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
> tree without taking responsibility for it.
sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I cannot test
the thing. Furthermore I am actually part of maintainer-needed and commit
fixes th
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
>
> If neither of those points are convincing enough, then remember free
> software comes with *NO-WARRANTY*
s/free//
Even payware is w/out warranties.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing l
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Edgar Hucek wrote:
I know my tools but not necessarly the normal user who wanna use gentoo
and is ending frustrated.
If the users are too lazy to read the documentation, why should we care
about them?
Because we risk that Gentoo may receive t
Richard Fish wrote:
On 9/2/06, Wiktor Wandachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suppose that there is a way that Gentoo can follow, only that its
leaders,
developers and users need to see it clearly. Is there a publicly visible
page that contains current goals for new releases? Where all sub-pr
On Sunday 03 September 2006 11:20, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> triggered by bug #77751: hspell lists a non-gentoo.org address for
> the maintainer email, the herd as maintainer-needed, and no other
> addresses.
>
> Is this sort of thing now ok?
No.
Carsten
pgpLh7ZV4WbmG.pgp
Description: PGP signat
triggered by bug #77751: hspell lists a non-gentoo.org address for
the maintainer email, the herd as maintainer-needed, and no other
addresses.
Is this sort of thing now ok?
I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
tree without taking responsibility for it. I would ex
Alec Warner wrote:
needs as far as QA. Last year Halcy0n petitioned for power for the QA
team; it was quite like a ball crushing power (fix it or we will) and it
seemed to have all kinds of frictional issues. This being a global
issue I would like to hear thoughts on how this could be done bett
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Edgar Hucek wrote:
> > I know my tools but not necessarly the normal user who wanna use gentoo
> > and is ending frustrated.
>
> If the users are too lazy to read the documentation, why should we care
> about them?
Because we risk that Gentoo may receive the "user-UN-frie
Richard Fish wrote:
> > I suppose that there is a way that Gentoo can follow, only that its leaders,
> > developers and users need to see it clearly. Is there a publicly visible
> > page that contains current goals for new releases? Where all sub-project
> > leaders could add their own goals, cohe
52 matches
Mail list logo
