-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:04:58PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>>Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited:
>>>- teach developers to use -kb where they should
>>
>>Wouldn't
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:04:58PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited:
> > - teach developers to use -kb where they should
> Wouldn't it be -ko for a patch?
-kb is actually better than -ko, due to how it's handled
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited:
> - teach developers to use -kb where they should
Wouldn't it be -ko for a patch?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Gn
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 03:04:48AM +0200, Anders Rune Jensen wrote:
> Let me first start by saying that committing straight to stable was
> clearly a mistake. I can't help wonder why CVS would change patch files
> (it probably doesn't know the difference between ordinary files and
> patches)
This
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 14:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever*
> commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a
> trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with
> simple patches --
On Sunday 24 April 2005 05:09 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Of course, there's the occasional notable exception who regularly screws
> stuff up and just plain doesn't care.
spank me ! :(
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>>They're
>>supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how long
>>it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe).
>
> I was talking about
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:37:00 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > They're
| > supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how
| > long it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe).
|
| I was t
On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> They're
> supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how long
> it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe).
I was talking about double-checking *every* commit of every developer. That
will be an overkill, imho.
--
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:24:08 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I think that doing something like that, surely will increase safety,
| but will also drive gentoo out of the world.
|
| We have already too many packages which needs maintainers, and having
| to double-ch
On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:08, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Also if who approves is _not_ the mentor / sane a 4 eyes check is always
> a good thing (TM) it's the way kernel develop is going from years now,
> right?
I think that doing something like that, surely will increase safety, but will
also driv
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:59:14 +0200 foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 21:29 +0100, Paul Waring wrote:
| > Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something
| > straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has
| > their CVS access revoked.
|
| It's
On 4/24/05, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not California here. You completely ignore the fact that some
> people commit more than others and as such are more likely to trip over
> such a rule anyway and the people who do commit a lot are usually the
> same people you don't want to revoke
>What I'd *like* to see is all new devs and any dev who has a history of
>breaking things committing to a branch rather than the main tree, and
>having their commits approved (merged) by their mentor / someone sane.
>
>
Also if who approves is _not_ the mentor / sane a 4 eyes check is always
a g
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 21:29 +0100, Paul Waring wrote:
> Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something
> straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their
> CVS access revoked.
It's not California here. You completely ignore the fact that some
people commit mor
On 4/24/05, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heh, comming from non-gentoo email address :-)
I get just as annoyed if someone commits something straight to stable
and it breaks something on my system. :)
Paul
--
Rogue Tory
www.roguetory.org.uk
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:29:19 +0100 Paul Waring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On 4/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't
| > *ever* commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you
| > think it's a trivial fix
Paul Waring wrote:
> Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something
> straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their
> CVS access revoked.
Heh, comming from non-gentoo email address :-)
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Descr
On 4/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever*
> commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a
> trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with
> simple patches -- for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Don't *ever* commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you
> think it's a
> trivial fix.
Indeed! I learned that lesson with bug 73072 :)
- --
Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-
Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever*
commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a
trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with
simple patches -- for example, if you accidentally included some CVS Id:
lines in yo
21 matches
Mail list logo
