On 06/01/2011 10:15 PM, Christopher Head wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:33:03 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> libjpeg-turbo stabilization is happening for amd64/x86 at
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/360715
>>
>> - the gentoo-x86 has been conver
В Срд, 01/06/2011 в 19:37 -0400, Matt Turner пишет:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> wrote:
> > To be clear I support the goal to move our tree to git.
> > However, I'd like to point out that simply moving to git will leave us
> > in the same state.
++
ChangeLog file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:33:03 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> libjpeg-turbo stabilization is happening for amd64/x86 at
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/360715
>
> - the gentoo-x86 has been converted to virtual/jpeg to support this.
> - we have no bugs report
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01-06-2011 22:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think the problem is that we're getting a bit legalistic here. I
> have no idea why we even needed the policy change. IMHO what should
> happen is:
>
> 1. Dev does something significant and doesn't upda
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
wrote:
> To be clear I support the goal to move our tree to git.
> However, I'd like to point out that simply moving to git will leave us
> in the same state. Assuming everyone agrees that git is far more useful
> than cvs to check for cha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01-06-2011 19:50, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
> wrote:
>>
>>> So we come back to the problem being *CVS* not ChangeLog rules.
>>
>> Well of course we can just tell everyone "go look it up on
>> sou
Rich Freeman wrote:
I think that we need a simple policy like:
Write up Changelogs for any change that impacts what gets installed on
our user's computers.
Then we can write up some guidelines about how to apply this policy in practice.
I think the problem is that we're getting a bit legalisti
Il giorno mer, 01/06/2011 alle 18.59 -0400, Rich Freeman ha scritto:
> Write up Changelogs for any change that impacts what gets installed on
> our user's computers.
>
This is not really a good approach; Peter's approach is more reliable on
this.
Let me explain: an EAPI bump _should not_ impact
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> The current "every change" policy goes overboard, I doubt anyone
> disagrees, but it's worth repeating the point someone else made already,
> every added exception makes the rule harder to remember. The four
> numbered excepti
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
>> So we come back to the problem being *CVS* not ChangeLog rules.
>
> Well of course we can just tell everyone "go look it up on
> sources.gentoo.org".
> However, this is a different discussion.
>
sources.gentoo.org is a much worse (an
Nathan Phillip Brink posted on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:30:21 -0400 as
excerpted:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 01/06/2011 04:08 , Peter Volkov wrote:
>> > ?? ??, 30/05/2011 ?? 14:55 -0700, Brian Harring ??:
>> >> The problem is, that's a *fuzz
> So we come back to the problem being *CVS* not ChangeLog rules.
Well of course we can just tell everyone "go look it up on sources.gentoo.org".
However, this is a different discussion.
> All this is such a massive waste of time. Can't we just expend this
> energy on the move to git?
Ack, thi
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2011, 17:27:04 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
>
>> Wouldn't it be better to just trust devs to use common sense in what
>> gets into ChangeLogs, and actually be grateful about if they take the
>> time to sensor the crap out
Am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2011, 17:27:04 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
> Wouldn't it be better to just trust devs to use common sense in what
> gets into ChangeLogs, and actually be grateful about if they take the
> time to sensor the crap out from it, and scrap the whole topic?
The problem is, not everyone
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:27:04 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to just trust devs to use common sense in what
> gets into ChangeLogs, and actually be grateful about if they take the
> time to sensor the crap out from it, and scrap the whole topic?
This whole thing came about be
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 04:08 , Peter Volkov wrote:
> > ?? ??, 30/05/2011 ?? 14:55 -0700, Brian Harring ??:
> >> The problem is, that's a *fuzzy* definition.
> >
> > Ok, let's start with something and then we'll add more ite
On 06/01/2011 06:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 04:08 ¼¼, Peter Volkov wrote:
>> =4, 30/05/2011 2 14:55 -0700, Brian Harring ?8H5B:
>>> The problem is, that's a *fuzzy* definition.
>
>> Ok, let's start with something and then we'll add more items if
>> required. Currently I'd li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/06/2011 04:08 μμ, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Пнд, 30/05/2011 в 14:55 -0700, Brian Harring пишет:
>> The problem is, that's a *fuzzy* definition.
>
> Ok, let's start with something and then we'll add more items if
> required. Currently I'd like t
В Пнд, 30/05/2011 в 14:55 -0700, Brian Harring пишет:
> The problem is, that's a *fuzzy* definition.
Ok, let's start with something and then we'll add more items if
required. Currently I'd like to propose following text:
The ChangeLog must be updated with each commit. The only possible
relaxatio
Mailed a while back about restoring the plugdev group behavior like HAL
had for their udev replacements upower and udisks, so finally got
something real to be tested:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/369667
Just comment on the bug instead of ML
Thanks, Samuli
20 matches
Mail list logo
