On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:53:22 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which
> one do you assign it to?
The fastest gun in the west.
> If we want a separate assignee for old stabilizations, what about a
> separate project that handles this, or
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:18:32 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Many objected to removal since old with minor issues is better than
> new that doesn't work at all on some archs, or so the argument goes.
TL;DR: The opposite exists, I think we should draw a bar in the middle.
So goes the counter-argumen
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:30:21 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:41:57 +0100
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > > Assigning bugs so arch teams is cosmetic at best.
>
> s|so|to|
>
> > While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual
> > maintenance of the ebuild to t
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:37:03AM +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:53:22 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which
> > one do you assign it to?
>
> Oh the fun we had in the past when bugs got assigned to one ar
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:53:22 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which
> one do you assign it to?
Oh the fun we had in the past when bugs got assigned to one arch team
with a few others CC'd and no maintainer in sight (because maybe the
m
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 02:30:21PM +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:41:57 +0100
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > > Assigning bugs so arch teams is cosmetic at best.
>
> s|so|to|
>
> > While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual
> > maintenance of the ebuild
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:41:57AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:28:55 +0100
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:59:58 +0100
> > Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >
> > > > And that can work without a problem if we have a mechanism
> > > > in place to relieve maintainer
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:48:44AM +0100, yac wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:02:49 -0500
> Emery Hemingway wrote:
> > The default GOROOT that go looks at for base libraries seems to be
> > compiled in so this should be pretty easy, like python but simplier.
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/02/14 16:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Should we allow pictures if the image file format is a text file?
Rather than having a hard rule for allowing or disallowing image
files, we should evaluate the intention of a file. If it make sense to
edit
> "JAD" == Jason A Donenfeld writes:
UM>> Should we allow pictures if the image file format is a text file?
JAD> I think we should not. Even if you can open it in a text editor,
JAD> you can't "read" it or interact with it in the same way that you
JAD> can a text-based patch.
That's not tru
# Ulrich Müller (15 Feb 2014)
# Support library for app-emacs/prime-el, which is masked
# for removal itself. No other reverse dependencies.
# Masked for removal in 30 days, bug 501426.
app-emacs/mell
pgpndeMHQ9ejG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:13:27 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:02:49AM -0500, Emery Hemingway wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:30:10 +0100
> > Jan Matejka wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:59:16 -0600
> > > William Hubbs wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > >
# Ulrich Müller (15 Feb 2014)
# Doesn't appear to work with Emacs 24.
# Last upstream release in 2002.
# Masked for removal in 30 days, bug 501412.
app-emacs/alt-font-menu
# Ulrich Müller (15 Feb 2014)
# Included with Emacs since version 23.
# cperl-mode-6.2 does not work with Emacs 24.
# Masked
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:41:57 +0100
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
>> While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual
>> maintenance of the ebuild to the arch team; such that it becomes the
>> arch team's responsibility to deal wi
El sáb, 15-02-2014 a las 14:30 +0100, Jeroen Roovers escribió:
[...]
> The only reasonable course of action is to start dropping stable
> keywords for $ARCH, after a reasonable timeout. It gets tricky if this
> involves removing many keywords on dependencies, but if that's what you
> have to do to
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:41:57 +0100
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Assigning bugs so arch teams is cosmetic at best.
s|so|to|
> While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual
> maintenance of the ebuild to the arch team; such that it becomes the
> arch team's responsibility to deal w
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:28:55 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:59:58 +0100
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > > And that can work without a problem if we have a mechanism
> > > in place to relieve maintainers of those bugs.
> >
> > Such mechanism could be to assign those bug to the
17 matches
Mail list logo
