Natanael Copa wrote:
>
> What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? Lets
> say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When there is a
> bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an updated
> ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access.
>
Tach Josh, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Josh Saddler schrieb:
> Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote:
>> Most devs run ~arch
> Says who? Did you pull that fact out of a hat, or something? Do you have
> any hard numbers to back that statement?
"A lot of devs run ~arch" is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote:
> Most devs run ~arch
Says who? Did you pull that fact out of a hat, or something? Do you have any
hard numbers to back that statement?
Let's have an informal poll some time: I know I don't run ~arch, and there are
Tach Ioannis, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Ioannis Aslanidis schrieb:
>> - Make every dev a member of at least 1 arch team
> That's a sound idea, that way some herds (see KDE) won't have to be
> searching for testers in every arch because _strangely_ one of the most
> da
Tach Thomas, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Thomas Cort schrieb:
> Every developer should have access to at least 1 Gentoo system. They
> should also be able to determine if something is stable or not. It would
> cut down on the number of keyword/stable bugs if developers
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 04:09 +, Duncan wrote:
> Two and potentially far worse, you have the demotivation problem. Picking
> on a rather active dev as a prime example, Flameeyes' Gentoo/alt-freebsd
> is certainly a minority arch, one that he spends a decent amount of time
> on that could arguabl
"Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400:
> My view is that currently we cannot offer the same level of support
> for the minority arches as the majority arches because we don't have
> enough people involved. I think that spre
Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 04
Oct 2006 22:53:52 +:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:36:37AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>>
>> I really want to see another checking of the CVS logs (without names, of
>> course) to see just how much w
