Guys, please, if you want to bikeshed about bug summary, please do it in
a constructive way and get the automated bug assignment project going.
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/66279
Otherwise, please reimburse the time I've spent reading this useless
thread, TIA ;)
(For the r
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:43:12 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If necessary the council can bless it, but I suspect
>> that most will see the logic of your arguments, and perhaps together
>> we'll even improve on it a little.
>
> If really really n
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:43:12 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> 3. Everybody else can pitch in and help out so that you're not having
> to reformat all those bugs on your own.
This will increase the noise, we're still going to need to implement
some kind of trivial edit flag and list to allow this to b
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 20:32:25 +0200
Manuel Rüger wrote:
> nothing of the taks you've listed enables you to proceed as you're
> doing right now without an existing (i.e. written down) policy.
I don't know what a taks is, but nothing in this volunteer project
stops me from correcting your mistakes,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> nothing of the taks you've listed enables you to proceed as you're
> doing right now without an existing (i.e. written down) policy.
>
I think this is the main concern being voiced here.
Jer - can you perhaps consolidate your conventions arou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/07/2013 08:01 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:07:55 +0200 Manuel Rüger
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I appreciate the kinder tone.
>
>> first of all I welcome and appreciate the work all members of
>> the other bug wranglers pro
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:07:55 +0200
Manuel Rüger wrote:
[...]
I appreciate the kinder tone.
> first of all I welcome and appreciate the work all members of the
> other bug wranglers project[1] and you do.
This is where you start to slip. I am not just a bug wrangler.
- I maintain many hundreds
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/06/2013 11:46 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> 23:37:25 rej, you have notes! [21:13] Let me
> rephrase this: Just a friendly notice to please refrain from
> rephrasing bug summaries from "Stabilize ${P}" to "${P} stable
> req". This just adds un
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
wrote:
> Alexis was talking about KEYWORDREQ, not STABLEREQ. When asking to readd
> a keyword, you almost always want that keyword for whatever is the
> highest version in a specific slot, even if that version has been in the
> tree for three da
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 09:35 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:04:28 +0200
> > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> >> That's fine, bug wranglers are doing a great job there.
> >>
> >> However, I'm also sick of getting bugmail bec
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:04:28 +0200
> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>> That's fine, bug wranglers are doing a great job there.
>>
>> However, I'm also sick of getting bugmail because $RANDOM_DEV thinks
>> * TRACKER is better than Tracker,
>> * e
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:41:14 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> I don't see any issue here. You are a bug wrangler and should have the
> authority to mess with anything in bugzilla.
As far as I know people in that project are no different from people out
of that project; you could start a similar project,
On 08/06/2013 11:46 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> 23:37:25 rej, you have notes! [21:13] Let me
> rephrase this: Just a friendly notice to please refrain from rephrasing
> bug summaries from "Stabilize ${P}" to "${P} stable req". This just
> adds unneeded noise to the bug. I don't want this on bugs
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:04:28 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> However, I'm also sick of getting bugmail because $RANDOM_DEV thinks
>
> * every atom needs a "=" in front, and
> * "Please stabilize XXX" should always be replaced by "XXX
> stabilization".
For these two I've been guilty; but, th
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:46:04 +0200
Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> Not so hypothetical situation: someone files a bug: "Fancy KDE mail
> program fails with my gcc", you fix it and live happily ever after.
> How on earth am I supposed to find it when porting/stabilizing newer
> version of gcc?
> I expect
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 23:46:08 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> 23:37:25 rej, you have notes! [21:13] Let me
> rephrase this: Just a friendly notice to please refrain from
> rephrasing bug summaries from "Stabilize ${P}" to "${P} stable req".
> This just adds unneeded noise to the bug. I don't want
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:04:28 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> That's fine, bug wranglers are doing a great job there.
>
> However, I'm also sick of getting bugmail because $RANDOM_DEV thinks
> * TRACKER is better than Tracker,
> * every atom needs a "=" in front, and
This is wrong btw. Som
On 07/08/13 11:46, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
Not so hypothetical situation: someone files a bug: "Fancy KDE mail
program fails with my gcc", you fix it and live happily ever after.
How on earth am I supposed to find it when porting/stabilizing newer
version of gcc?
I expect (as many others) something
On 08/07/2013 11:04 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. August 2013, 10:46:04 schrieb Kacper Kowalik:
>> On 08/07/2013 01:57 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013, 23:46:08 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
23:37:25 rej, you have notes! [21:13] Let me
rephrase
Am Mittwoch, 7. August 2013, 10:46:04 schrieb Kacper Kowalik:
> On 08/07/2013 01:57 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013, 23:46:08 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
> >> 23:37:25 rej, you have notes! [21:13] Let me
> >> rephrase this: Just a friendly notice to please refrain from
On 08/07/2013 01:57 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013, 23:46:08 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
>> 23:37:25 rej, you have notes! [21:13] Let me
>> rephrase this: Just a friendly notice to please refrain from rephrasing
>> bug summaries from "Stabilize ${P}" to "${P} stable req"
Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013, 23:46:08 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
> 23:37:25 rej, you have notes! [21:13] Let me
> rephrase this: Just a friendly notice to please refrain from rephrasing
> bug summaries from "Stabilize ${P}" to "${P} stable req". This just
> adds unneeded noise to the bug. I don't w
22 matches
Mail list logo
