El lun, 07-04-2014 a las 08:37 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
[...]
> I agree, this is the best solution, something like
> no that can
> then be parsed by whatever scripts.
> I could work with that, and to ease that, I believe it should be part of
> the default metadata.xml template in a way of
>
On 07/04/14 01:57, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> On 04/02/2014 02:22 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
> >> The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
> >> when package has multiple SLOTs, because
> >> the bugs are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/02/2014 02:22 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
>> when package has multiple SLOTs, because
>> the bugs are filed for only la
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:30:20PM +0400, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
>
> 02.04.2014 20:52, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> > The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
> > when package has multiple SLOTs, because
> > the bugs are filed for only latest SLOT, where as some packages requ
02.04.2014 20:52, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
> when package has multiple SLOTs, because
> the bugs are filed for only latest SLOT, where as some packages require
> stabilization in sync at both SLOTs
>
> Option 1:
>
> Either revert
El mié, 02-04-2014 a las 14:22 -0400, Mike Gilbert escribió:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
> > when package has multiple SLOTs, because
> > the bugs are filed for only latest SLOT, where as some pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/04/14 03:28 PM, hasufell wrote:
> I'm just not sure what any of the randomly filed stablereqs are
> for. It doesn't help anyone, unless the guy who filed it actually
> uses it or if it is a blocker for another stabilization.
>
> It's annoying
On 04/03/2014 12:52 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
> when package has multiple SLOTs, because
> the bugs are filed for only latest SLOT, where as some packages require
> stabilization in sync at both SLOTs
Question: Why is the main
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Alex Xu wrote:
> On 02/04/14 04:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Another option might be to have a tag in metadata.xml that flags
>> packages as never-stable
>
> Arguments have been made that such packages do not belong in g-x86.
>
Why not? In general I think package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Alex Xu:
> On 02/04/14 04:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Another option might be to have a tag in metadata.xml that flags
>> packages as never-stable
>
> Arguments have been made that such packages do not belong in
> g-x86.
>
I did understand it t
On 02/04/14 04:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Another option might be to have a tag in metadata.xml that flags
> packages as never-stable
Arguments have been made that such packages do not belong in g-x86.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ok, noted that other people like to have those reminders.
Rich Freeman:
> Another option might be to have a tag in metadata.xml that flags
> packages as never-stable or indicating that stabilization requires
> coordination, which might help with
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On the packages I maintain, I tend to use the latest unstable version
> of the software. Stabilizing them rarely crosses my mind.
>
> I rather like the semi-automated reminders. They come in handy for my
> own packages, as well as the large, un
Dnia 2014-04-02, o godz. 19:28:30
hasufell napisał(a):
> I'm just not sure what any of the randomly filed stablereqs are for.
> It doesn't help anyone, unless the guy who filed it actually uses it
> or if it is a blocker for another stabilization.
>
> It's annoying me for some time now. I expect
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:28 PM, hasufell wrote:
> I'm just not sure what any of the randomly filed stablereqs are for.
> It doesn't help anyone, unless the guy who filed it actually uses it
> or if it is a blocker for another stabilization.
>
> It's annoying me for some time now. I expect maintain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I'm just not sure what any of the randomly filed stablereqs are for.
It doesn't help anyone, unless the guy who filed it actually uses it
or if it is a blocker for another stabilization.
It's annoying me for some time now. I expect maintainers to ke
On 02/04/14 21:22, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
>> when package has multiple SLOTs, because
>> the bugs are filed for only latest SLOT, where as some packages require
>> stabil
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
> when package has multiple SLOTs, because
> the bugs are filed for only latest SLOT, where as some packages require
> stabilization in sync at both SLOTs
>
> Option 1:
>
The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working
when package has multiple SLOTs, because
the bugs are filed for only latest SLOT, where as some packages require
stabilization in sync at both SLOTs
Option 1:
Either revert the whole policy, and never CC arches on unanswered bug
19 matches
Mail list logo
