On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 09:40:22PM +0200, Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:43:59 +0200
> > Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
> >
> > > Okay. So we can just agree it's better if the maintainer
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:43:59 +0200
> Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
>
> > Okay. So we can just agree it's better if the maintainer tells his
> > reasons when opening the bug, to spare the later clarificati
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:04:36 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:38 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:33:17 +0300
> > Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "It works. Do it."
> >
> > Oh by the way. This isn't directed
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:38 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:33:17 +0300
> Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "It works. Do it."
>
> Oh by the way. This isn't directed toward you personally, but I
> personally detest this "do it" attitude. You wouldn't say that
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:33:17 +0300
Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "It works. Do it."
Oh by the way. This isn't directed toward you personally, but I
personally detest this "do it" attitude. You wouldn't say that to my
face, would you? (Trust me, you would regret it.) :)
JeR
-
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:33:17 +0300
Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:43:59 +0200
> Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
>
> > Okay. So we can just agree it's better if the maintainer tells his
> > reasons when opening the bug, to spare the later clarifica
Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:43:59 +0200
Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
> Okay. So we can just agree it's better if the maintainer tells his
> reasons when opening the bug, to spare the later clarifications?
"It works. Do it."
- drac
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:09:24 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:49 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds
last
It is the norm. It is not a requirement. In fact, it is
spe
Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:09:24 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
> On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:49 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds
> > > last
>
> It is the norm. It is not a requirement. In fact, it is
> specifical
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:49 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds last
It is the norm. It is not a requirement. In fact, it is specifically a
"guideline" rather than a hard rule. It is up to the maintainer's
discretion when to ask fo
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On the other hand, maybe these early stabilisation bug reports are a
sign of the times and we need to shorten the normal thirty day period,
become even more of a cutting edge distro - or at least discuss the
options.
I'd say leave the current norm a
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
Dear ebuild maintainers,
thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds last
non-keywording change while in the tree and the usual call for
stabilisation. If you cannot find a pressing reason to push
stabilisation forward, then don't ask. In the las
12 matches
Mail list logo
