"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:29:31 +0100:
> I don't know what kind of changes meant Donnie (I hope he clarify that)
> but a couple of examples came to my mind when I read his proposal: bugs
> #182253 and #181897.
Good ex
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:42:03 +:
> Duncan wrote:
>> It's kinda hard to discuss such a proposal without knowing where it is
>> going to be applied
> I took it to mean anything which changes something already documented
Duncan wrote:
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007
> 12:40:58 +0100:
>
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
>>> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on
On Nov 29, 2007 7:06 PM, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Something must have motivated you to present this now. What was it, or
> to put it a different way, how would have things been different in your
> view had this policy been in effect? Point to other examples as well if
> you believe t
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007
21:38:54 -0800:
> In fact, I believe exactly the opposite. What we want to create are
> basic philosophies to guide us. Nailing down a million tiny details is
> what makes things not fun, and what m
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The Linux kernel seems to still have contributors, despite its
> requirement.
You have been quoted on LWN:
"'The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all
changes requiring said documentation -- part of the source-code patch
must ap
On 05:04 Thu 29 Nov , Duncan wrote:
> Leave it to ciarnm to be so direct, amusing tho it is, but that pretty
> much nails it. I've seen it said by some that Gentoo's no longer "fun".
> I disagree but honestly, ask yourself if there's a better way to ruin the
> fun remaining than by institu
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov
2007 21:33:19 +:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Many of the replies keep asking for details -- details that don't
>> exist. Apply the concept abs
On 21:33 Wed 28 Nov , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800
> > What remains unclear about this principle?
>
> It's entirely nebulous and has nothing that can be discussed or agreed
> upon, beyond giving people a feel good "ooh, yes, we should do this"
> with no practical
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many of the replies keep asking for details -- details that don't
> exist. Apply the concept abstractly: things that need to be
> documented must have documentation available in the appropriate form
> at the time they'r
On 12:38 Wed 28 Nov , Duncan wrote:
> Donnie, I'm sure you have the scope of what you intend to apply this to
> firmly in your mind, but it's not at all clear from your post what it
> is. Ebuilds? Doesn't make sense with changelog already there and
> generally used (when folks don't forget
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To sum up: No undocumented changes.
> Discuss.
Would be nice...what we need is a maniac taking care of the devmanual
and merging it with all other development related information shattered
around (and nag people for more information). But as we aren't able
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007
12:40:58 +0100:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
>> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an
>> idea.
13 matches
Mail list logo
