On czwartek, 3 listopada 2016 07:31:10 CET Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 00:52:16 +0100
>
> Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> > From: Maciej Mrozowski
> >
> > ---
> >
> > eclass/cmake-utils.eclass | 54
> > ++- 1 file changed, 21
> > insertions
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 9:14:56 AM EDT William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> I am also in favor of the metadata approach.
>
> Also it may start inching things towards restricting areas of the tree to said
> members of teams etc. Which star
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:36:03PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 9:14:56 AM EDT William Hubbs wrote:
I have posted about this subject before, and I'll go and dust off the
proposal with the last changes added, when I have time soon hopefully.
> > I am also in
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 9:14:56 AM EDT William Hubbs wrote:
>
> I am also in favor of the metadata approach.
The only downfall is you end up with lots of package/developer specific
policies which may become complex and a nuisance. It is likely better to have
more of a global policy.
Also
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:15:07 AM EDT Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Every other day on IRC, I see people arguing about touching each
> others packages, despite our policies against it. (Sometimes it's even
> me who's doing the touching!) My instinctive reaction is always,
> "ca
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> == Policy changes? ==
> I think that the following new policies could make sense:
> 1. Revision number must be no longer than :
> 1a. to make <=X-r reliable,
> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date.
I think that we should con
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 03/11/16 01:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Let's just hope nobody starts using tex version numbering and so on.
>> Dates might be used in cases where upstream doesn't publish sane
>> revisions (in fact, texlive versions are dates, albe
On 03/11/16 01:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> 1. Revision number must be no longer than :
>> 1a. to make <=X-r reliable,
>> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date.
>>
>
> Let's just hope nobody starts using tex version
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2016 à 11:15 +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld a écrit :
> Hey guys,
>
> Every other day on IRC, I see people arguing about touching each
> others packages, despite our policies against it. (Sometimes it's
> even
> me who's doing the touching!) My instinctive reaction is always,
> "ca
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> 1. Revision number must be no longer than :
> 1a. to make <=X-r reliable,
> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date.
>
Let's just hope nobody starts using tex version numbering and so on.
Dates might be used in cases wh
Hi, everyone.
As part of our work on version operators, we've noticed some issues
with our version policies. ulm has done some additional research on
the topic and now I'd like to open a discussion on our rules.
== PMS rules ==
PMS specifies only minimal syntax for versions, that is allowed type
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:54:39AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> >
> > Although metadata.xml is one way to do this, since it is more of a social
> > thing than a technical one I think it might be better to wikify it instead
> > -- each
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>
> Although metadata.xml is one way to do this, since it is more of a social
> thing than a technical one I think it might be better to wikify it instead --
> each dev can list their "please fix my package" preferences in a per package
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>> Just doing that one little thing would have prevented or shutdown the
>> arguments I have seen.
>
> Yes, obviously of course.
>
> But sometimes it's just easier and quicker to me
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> Just doing that one little thing would have prevented or shutdown the
> arguments I have seen.
Yes, obviously of course.
But sometimes it's just easier and quicker to meddle in somebody
else's ebuild to improve a particular situation. The ques
On 11/03/2016 03:16 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Every other day on IRC, I see people arguing about touching each
> others packages, despite our policies against it. (Sometimes it's even
> me who's doing the touching!) My instinctive reaction is always,
> "can't everybody calm dow
# Pacho Ramos (03 Nov 2016)
# Dead for ages and broken with giflib-5.1, bug #574218. Removal in a
month.
mail-filter/spamprobe
Hey guys,
Every other day on IRC, I see people arguing about touching each
others packages, despite our policies against it. (Sometimes it's even
me who's doing the touching!) My instinctive reaction is always,
"can't everybody calm down and be happy somebody is doing your work
for you?" The answe
Hey guys,
Every other day on IRC, I see people arguing about touching each
others packages, despite our policies against it. (Sometimes it's even
me who's doing the touching!) My instinctive reaction is always,
"can't everybody calm down and be happy somebody is doing your work
for you?" The answe
19 matches
Mail list logo
