-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 17:04 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Instead, why not look into reducing the amount of traffic on -core?
>
> Actually, the amount of traffic on -core these days has been pretty
> minimal. In some week
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 17:04 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Instead, why not look into reducing the amount of traffic on -core?
Actually, the amount of traffic on -core these days has been pretty
minimal. In some weeks, the only messages setn are my GWN proofreading
requests. Sure, there are sti
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> If something's supposed to be transparent, it shouldn't be on -core.
> And, conversely, if something's on -core, it's not supposed to be
> transparent. Opening up -core just makes it harder to handle those
> rare cases where things really are required to be restricted.
I a
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:54:23 -0600
Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personally prefer the first option here, but others think full
> public transparency would be nice, and after ${time_period} most of
> the info on -core isn't nearly as 'sensitive' as it is when first
> posted.
If somethi
Torsten Veller wrote:
> * Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > another one i had mentioned earlier:
> > > - a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public archives ... two
> > > years ?
> >
> > I object and hope this is never done.
>
> Me
On Thursday 12 April 2007, Torsten Veller wrote:
> * Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > another one i had mentioned earlier:
> > > - a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public archives ... two years
> > > ?
> >
> > I object and hope t
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> If anybody is interested, i can provide you (this is all gentoo ebuild
devs*) either with lists of QA problems in the tree to fix, or with
tools that enable you to search for one particular (kind of) QA
violation in the whole tree, whatever your prefer.
It might be an i
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:41:50AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> >>> Breaking EAPI=0 via pushing slot deps in isn't much of an option in
> >>> my opinion; usual "needs to have been on release media for at least 6
> >> We can push for an EAPI=1 == (EAPI=0 + slot deps)...
> >
Am Freitag, 6. April 2007 00:11 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > > You can trigger the same issue in portage via wiping pretty much
> > > everything in PORTDIR (switching the tree, or just a literal rm
> > > of everything but profiles crap), but that's fairly corner case.
> > >
> > > Don't much like the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danny van Dyk wrote:
>> Not sure if slot deps themselves could even replace version ranges
>> hacks without also solving bug 4315 (native version ranges) in all
>> cases. IMHO it should be possible at least to specify slot+usual
>> version limit, to ma
Am Freitag, 6. April 2007 00:41 schrieb Vlastimil Babka:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> >>> Breaking EAPI=0 via pushing slot deps in isn't much of an option
> >>> in my opinion; usual "needs to have been on release media for at
> >>> least 6
> >>
> >> We can push for an EAPI=1 == (EAPI=0 + slot deps)...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
>>> Breaking EAPI=0 via pushing slot deps in isn't much of an option in
>>> my opinion; usual "needs to have been on release media for at least 6
>> We can push for an EAPI=1 == (EAPI=0 + slot deps)...
>
> Can, yep, although that w
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:16:18AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > > * There is at least one outstanding QA issue that i know of which
> > > is related to Portage and can't be fixed w/o slot deps properly.
> > > Read: KDE's problems with ranged deps and the way it currently
> > > breaks the vdb's R
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 23:24 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 20:20 schrieb Mike Doty:
> > > Torsten Veller wrote:
> > > > * Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >> apparent decline of QA in our packages.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 20:20 schrieb Mike Doty:
> > Torsten Veller wrote:
> > > * Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> apparent decline of QA in our packages.
> > >
> > > Why do you want this to be a council topic if it wasn't
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 20:20 schrieb Mike Doty:
> Torsten Veller wrote:
> > * Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> apparent decline of QA in our packages.
> >
> > Why do you want this to be a council topic if it wasn't even a
> > topic here or on gentoo-qa@ ?
>
> Because our QA sucks and noone
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 19:06 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> He has already stipulated that "all decisions we made were 100% public"
> and "We do have to have all of our decisions made public, obviously."
Exactly.
Everything that was decided was done so in public and quite plainly. If
certain people h
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:28 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 05 Apr
> 2007 09:28:17 +0100:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> - PMS:
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
