On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> > based on a necessary amount of understanding.
>
> That is just incredibly naïve.
>
> [...]
>
> In history lessons you may have learned about majorities
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:16:44 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > > > You need to learn to respect what you don't know that you
> > > > > don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Or you apply knowledge codification and mark it as experimental.
> > >
> > > No, that's what you *know* that you d
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > > You need to learn to respect what you don't know that you don't
> > > > know.
> > >
> > > Or you apply knowledge codification and mark it as experimental.
> >
> > No, that's what you *know* that you don't know.
>
> Exactly, which effectively keeps us away from unknown
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:59:36 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > > I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> > > > based on a necessary amount of understanding.
> > >
> > > That is just incredibly naïve.
> ..
> > > You need to learn to respect what you don
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> > > based on a necessary amount of understanding.
> >
> > That is just incredibly naïve.
..
> > You need to learn to respect what you don't know that you don't know.
>
> Or you apply knowledge codification
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:59:48 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> > based on a necessary amount of understanding.
>
> That is just incredibly naïve.
>
> In another project five people reviewed an experimental change
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> based on a necessary amount of understanding.
That is just incredibly naïve.
In another project five people reviewed an experimental change
written by me that someone else proposed for inclusion into the
projec
On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 15:59 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 15:50:17 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:09:53 -0500
> > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by versio
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 15:50:17 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:09:53 -0500
> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by version and toolkit, but also by
> > > charset and debug/release. If we h
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:09:53 -0500
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by version and toolkit, but also by
> > charset and debug/release. If we had to use different SLOTs rather than
> > USE flags we would need
On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> wxGTK not only splits up libraries by version and toolkit, but also by charset
> and debug/release. If we had to use different SLOTs rather than USE flags we
> would need eight of them for 2.8 alone. And I don't know how we would name
> the
>
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 05:16:55 -0500
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> The other unfortunate aspect of the gtk3 flag is that it encourages
> using flags instead of slotting for libraries that can support both gtk
> and gtk3, resulting in needless rebuilds of when one of the flags is
> switched on/off.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:26:18 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Bye bye distribution level consistency :-(
The last time we had distribution level consistency was the moment between the
first and second packages getting committed to the tree.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:27:30 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 20/02/14 12:07, Duncan wrote:
> > Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:55:44 +0200 as
> > excerpted:
> >
> >> On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by
On 20 Feb 2014 12:30, "Samuli Suominen" wrote:
>
>
> On 20/02/14 12:07, Duncan wrote:
> > Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:55:44 +0200 as excerpted:
> >
> >> On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by 27
> >>> packag
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>> I find it sad the QA team has been taken over by some of the new and
>> semi-new
>> developers who don't completely understand the implications of this
>> decision yet
>> since they haven't lived through the older transitions.
>
> As fa
>
> I find it sad the QA team has been taken over by some of the new and
> semi-new
> developers who don't completely understand the implications of this
> decision yet
> since they haven't lived through the older transitions.
As far as I can remember, the "experienced" and "older" developers we
On 20/02/14 12:07, Duncan wrote:
> Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:55:44 +0200 as excerpted:
>
>> On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by 27
>>> packages, so I suggest making it a global flag:
>>>
>>> gtk3 - Add su
Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:55:44 +0200 as excerpted:
> On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by 27
>> packages, so I suggest making it a global flag:
>>
>> gtk3 - Add support for x11-libs/gtk+ (The GIMP Toolkit)
19 matches
Mail list logo
