On 02/04/14 23:07, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> On 04/02/2014 02:00 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> > On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>> Projects like the Council, ComRel and QA are there to protect Gentoo;
> >>> and yes, people
(picking this email to reply to, but it isn't mean to single anybody out)
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> Wow, now that I can see it your way I agree, I'm a horrible person.
> I'll stick to randomly changing the tree as I see fit with no discussion
> since forced
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/02/2014 02:00 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> Projects like the Council, ComRel and QA are there to protect Gentoo;
>>> and yes, people are (or shoul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/01/2014 02:41 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 01/04/14 21:33, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> Okay, but this isn't what happened yet; because your plan was to send
>> out a mail after stabilization for everyone to adapt the reverse
>> dependencies, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/01/2014 11:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
>> hasufell wrote:
>>
>>> And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. Currently
>>> it looks more like a loo
On 02/04/14 13:45, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2014, 10:29:28 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
>> On 02/04/14 11:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:00:19 +0300
>>>
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> You don't seem to understand
Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2014, 10:29:28 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
> On 02/04/14 11:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:00:19 +0300
> >
> > Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> >>> You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being used
> >>> a
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:29:28 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/04/14 11:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:00:19 +0300
> > Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> >>> You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being
> >>> used as a
On 02/04/14 11:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:00:19 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being used
>>> as an offensive weapon. It's a stick to bludgeon others with.
>> Exactly. Any
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:00:19 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> > You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being used
> > as an offensive weapon. It's a stick to bludgeon others with.
>
> Exactly. Anyone remembers what happened the last tim
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 19:02:08 -0700
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being used
> as an offensive weapon. It's a stick to bludgeon others with.
Yes, I understood; but I don't see how that describes
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 19:47:07 -0700
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:18 PM, hasufell wrote:
> > Tom... I am not sure if you know that, but your posts are difficult
> > to read. You split up posts horribly and I am often unable to
> > follow what you mean... at all.
> >
> > If I am th
On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> Projects like the Council, ComRel and QA are there to protect Gentoo;
>> and yes, people are (or should be) lining up to protect Gentoo.
> ... from QA.
>
> You don't seem to understand what Samuli is say
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:27:18PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> El 29/03/14 05:13, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> > I took the liberty to unbreak the tree for you. Don't ever touch my
> > packages again unless
> > they are broken.
> Udev is broken:
> * They have
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:18 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Tom... I am not sure if you know that, but your posts are difficult to
> read. You split up posts horribly and I am often unable to follow what
> you mean... at all.
>
> If I am the only one, then it's probably my fault.
Definitely not the only o
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Projects like the Council, ComRel and QA are there to protect Gentoo;
> and yes, people are (or should be) lining up to protect Gentoo.
... from QA.
You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being used
as an offensive weapon. I
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:18:44 +
hasufell wrote:
> Tom... I am not sure if you know that, but your posts are difficult to
> read. You split up posts horribly and I am often unable to follow what
> you mean... at all.
>
> If I am the only one, then it's probably my fault.
It's a good thing you
Tom Wijsman:
>
> Could it be that your e-mail reader shows quotes in the same color?
>
No.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:18:44 +
hasufell wrote:
> Tom... I am not sure if you know that, but your posts are difficult to
> read. You split up posts horribly and I am often unable to follow what
> you mean... at all.
>
> If I am the only one, then it's probably my fault.
When the post respond
Tom Wijsman:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:21:23 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> On 01/04/14 19:38, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>>> can serve as a reminder how people can respond to such a QA action,
>>> that is to talk to the 1) QA person, 2) QA team and then 3) Council.
>>
>> That is what was done, wi
On 01/04/14 21:33, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Okay, but this isn't what happened yet; because your plan was to send
> out a mail after stabilization for everyone to adapt the reverse
> dependencies, and I predict that that in its own would have lead to a
> discussion.
Exactly.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:21:23 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 01/04/14 19:38, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > can serve as a reminder how people can respond to such a QA action,
> > that is to talk to the 1) QA person, 2) QA team and then 3) Council.
>
> That is what was done, with the members online
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2014, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Mar 28 10:10:11so who will fix the mess resulting from
>>> virtual/libgudev?
>>> Mar 28 10:10:44such things should be package masked, instead
>>> of breaking the tree
>>>
>>> Mar 28 10:33
On 01/04/14 21:08, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Mar 28 10:10:11so who will fix the mess resulting from
>>> virtual/libgudev?
>>> Mar 28 10:10:44such things should be package masked, instead
>>> of breaking the tree
>>>
>>> Mar 28 10:33:01
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Mar 28 10:10:11so who will fix the mess resulting from
>> virtual/libgudev?
>> Mar 28 10:10:44such things should be package masked, instead
>> of breaking the tree
>>
>> Mar 28 10:33:01blueness: eudev-1.5.3-r1 depends on
>> virtual/
On 04/01/2014 01:45 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 01/04/14 20:46, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 04/01/2014 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So not, at any time, eudev users saw their implementation being replaced
by another by the PM.
This is reassuring. If I can get reassurances that eudev and
On 01/04/14 20:46, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> So not, at any time, eudev users saw their implementation being replaced
>> by another by the PM.
>
> This is reassuring. If I can get reassurances that eudev and udev
> will proceed forward on equal f
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> There is a strong structure present; for policy enforcement and
> breakage prevention, we have the ability to 1) act until there is
> disagreement, 2) vote by majority, 3) elevate to deputy and/or lead.
So, rather than making statements of bla
On 04/01/2014 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So not, at any time, eudev users saw their implementation being replaced
by another by the PM.
This is reassuring. If I can get reassurances that eudev and udev will
proceed forward on equal footing in the tree then I will feel much
better about
On 01/04/14 20:16, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 11:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
>>> hasufell wrote:
>>>
And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. Currently
it looks more like a
On 01/04/14 19:38, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:55:40 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> Futher, no policy was violated, none, whatsoever.
> The "appeal to ..." policy was, but it was a first time event; this
I don't (completely) agree with that, see below:
> can serve as a remi
On 04/01/2014 11:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
hasufell wrote:
And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. Currently
it looks more like a loose club, instead of a team with strong
hierarchical structure, w
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:55:40 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
> > hasufell wrote:
> >
> >> And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them.
> >> Currently it looks more like a loose club, instead of a team with
On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. Currently
>> it looks more like a loose club, instead of a team with strong
>> hierarchical structure, which is the only thing that enables
On 01/04/14 18:55, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Otherwise everyone would be lining up the QA team membership just to protect
> their work from others.
*lining up to join (sorry, typing error)
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
hasufell wrote:
> Seems there is a serious communication or authority problem in QA team
> then.
In the weekend, when this came up, there weren't much people around; as
for authority, that appears to be conforming [1] to the GLEP.
[1] "Majority is required in
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:48:24 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> The same GLEP says,
>
> "In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of
> established QA members must agree with the action. Some examples of
> disagreements are whether the perceived problem violates the policy or
> wheth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Samuli Suominen:
>
>
> The same GLEP says,
>
> "In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of
> established QA members must agree with the action. Some examples
> of disagreements are whether the perceived problem violates the
> po
On 31/03/14 23:35, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48
>
> "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not
> break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting.
> The package should be dealt with per QA's request until su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/31/2014 01:50 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 30/03/14 23:45, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>
>> Your input will be considered here with all the weight it deserves. My
>> mask was to force this discussion on the list and it has done it's j
On 30/03/14 23:45, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
> Your input will be considered here with all the weight it deserves. My
> mask was to force this discussion on the list and it has done it's job
> well.
So, you admit breaking the policy of gentoo-dev being a optional ML
for developers[1]
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/29/2014 12:13 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> You broke the gentoo-x86 by masking these virtuals without the already
> converted reverse
> dependencies.
No, I didn't, before accusing people of breaking the tree you may want
to cvs up.
> Plus I told
On 29/03/14 22:27, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> El 29/03/14 05:13, Samuli Suominen escribió:
>> I took the liberty to unbreak the tree for you. Don't ever touch my
>> packages again unless
>> they are broken.
> Udev is broken:
> * They have known off by one string han
Hi!
El 29/03/14 05:13, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> I took the liberty to unbreak the tree for you. Don't ever touch my
> packages again unless
> they are broken.
Udev is broken:
* They have known off by one string handling errors on their libraries,
the developers were warned of that but have chos
On 03/29/2014 09:33 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 29/03/14 15:24, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 03/29/2014 09:23 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 03/29/2014 08:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2
On 29/03/14 15:24, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 09:23 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 03/29/2014 08:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos"
On 03/29/2014 09:23 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 03/29/2014 08:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the su
On 03/29/2014 08:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first
arguement shows immediately w
On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
>> wrote:
>>> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first
>>> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many ot
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> I have already suggested separate category for perl virtuals but been
> quieted down at the time. I doubt people really want another category
> for virtuals since some of their poor tools rely on 'virtual/'.
So, first the obvious - the "poor
On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first
arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other
packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Of
Dnia 2014-03-28, o godz. 19:53:07
Rich Freeman napisał(a):
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> wrote:
> > All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first
> > arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other
> > packages have multiple l
You broke the gentoo-x86 by masking these virtuals without the already
converted reverse
dependencies.
Plus I told you to not bother me about this until there is something
broken, or you get
this banned by the PMS, or you get this feature dropped from the PM.
I took the liberty to unbreak the tree
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first
> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other
> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can
> think of poplar, but I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Recently, without discussion as suggested by the dev manual, new
virtuals were added for libudev and libgudev.
These virtuals are different than any virtuals use in gentoo in the
past, and due to this, I fell the discussion step is critical. As such,
55 matches
Mail list logo
