Dnia 2015-06-26, o godz. 22:42:07
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> Hello,
>
> Here's a quick patch to git-r3.eclass for review. It fixes handling of
> repositories where submodules were partially removed -- they're still
> listed in .gitmodules but the path was 'git rm'-ed. In this case,
> vanilla git
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if you followed my argumentation. I basically said that it
> is unrealistic to enforce a review-only workflow and that it should/can
> start within gentoo-internal projects. You are just repeating what I
> already said.
>
> My point
On 07/09/2015 01:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make
>> community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code
>> review) then you solve several problems at once, becaus
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:11:34 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> The only fear I have about CI, is that we turn into every other distro
> out there where "it builds, ship it!"
This would be an improvement over the current situation.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>
>
> So basically Gentoo Sunrise? :)
>
>> In any case, to some extent the review workflow already exists on the
>> proxy maintainer project. There is no limit to the number of packag
On 07/09/2015 10:45 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman mailto:ri...@gentoo.org>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell mailto:hasuf...@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>
> The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make
> commu
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell wrote:
> >
> > The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make
> > community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code
> > review) then you solve several problems a
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
>
> What I meant is when I get a stabilization bug for
> cat-egory/foo-1.2.3 which depends on >=other-cat/bar-1.0.5. The
> latter is amd64 but not alpha or ~alpha. And it, in turn, has yet
> more deps in the same vein. Now I have several opt
Hi!
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> > The truly arch-dependent bugs are what wastes my time:
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > - dependencies not being keyworded for arch or ~arch but only
> > amd64/~amd64
> > - dependen
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up putting
>> the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit,
>
> I think you're right. I also think those developers should quit right
> here and now. I
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up putting
> the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit,
I think you're right. I also think those developers should quit right
here and now. I don't think they will.
//Peter
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
> The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make
> community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code
> review) then you solve several problems at once, because you need _less_
> developers. Are you aware that
On 07/09/2015 09:19 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:20:14 +0200 hasufell wrote:
>> On 07/05/2015 08:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote:
It's important that the review flow is well-understood and efficient.
>>>
>>> This is
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:20:14 +0200 hasufell wrote:
> On 07/05/2015 08:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote:
> >> It's important that the review flow is well-understood and efficient.
> >
> > This is impossible in our case due to the lack of manpowe
14 matches
Mail list logo
