On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:51:36 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Bug-wranglers are supposed to do that by default. When you see a
> non-gentoo developer in metadata.xml, the default action is to assume his is
> the real maintainer and the bugs should be assigned to him. Such
> guidance should be docume
On 6 December 2012 15:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>> This policy is for the bug-wranglers project, which someone must
>> read before he attempts to do any bug-wrangling.
>> I see no reason to move this to devmanual.
>
> The reason is that I as a developer (whenever I become one
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Essentially, if the problem is with the ebuild or the way the package
> is integrated into gentoo, then fixing it immediately is fine. If the
> problem is with the software itself, then usually upstream needs to be
> involved before the fix will occur in gentoo.
Yes that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/12/12 10:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> [ Snip! ] In the last 15 hours I've dealt with several trivial bugs
> that I've found fixes for in bugzilla but which were not committed
> anywhere.
>
> I've committed them to my overlay and that's fine for
Markos Chandras wrote:
> This policy is for the bug-wranglers project, which someone must
> read before he attempts to do any bug-wrangling.
> I see no reason to move this to devmanual.
The reason is that I as a developer (whenever I become one) want to
be able to fix stuff right now that is broke
On 6 December 2012 11:02, Ben de Groot wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5 December 2012 02:51, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>> On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
>> wrote:
>> > On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> >> Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we al
On 5 December 2012 02:51, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> wrote:
> > On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> >> Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we always
> >> set the proxied maintainer as assignee, and the pro
On 4 December 2012 17:19, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 01:18, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > In my opinion we should limit the amount of places where we document
> > policies and best practices. I suggest we keep only devmanual and PMS as
> > authoritative documents.
> >
> > In that case
On 4 December 2012 15:42, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 4 December 2012 01:18, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> On 3 December 2012 03:30, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Dec 2, 2012 6:09 PM, "Rich Freeman" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 2,
On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 08:01, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>> I feel the description field is already overloaded when there is a proxy
>>>
On 04/12/2012 10:35, Sergey Popov wrote:
> Agreed. I add description field to metadata for proxying packages, cause
> i see such field in other packages' metadata. That is it. But it would
> be better when this became official policy. At least - define actual
> maintainer first, even if he is not d
04.12.2012 21:28, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> A quick "site:devmanual.gentoo.org proxy" search indicates no
> documentation of this at all.
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/proxy-maintainers/index.xml?style=printable
>
> This page exists, but doesn't really mention anything about proper
the patch has been modified to reflect Zero_Chaos suggestions:
- tell where to look for herd or maintainer notes (such as "touch at
will"): metadata.xml
- explicitly say to contact other devs if unsure how to handle a
situation, especially if it's a critical one
commit e6ebf193852f92aa1dfec162f1bc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/2012 12:32 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 06:17 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry but isn't specific policy related to global policy? Why
>> yes, yes it is.
>
>
> Unless they conflict, then no.
>
>
>>> On 12/04/2012
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/2012 06:17 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but isn't specific policy related to global policy? Why
> yes, yes it is.
>
Unless they conflict, then no.
>
>> On 12/04/2012 09:10 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
>>> If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 08:01, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> I feel the description field is already overloaded when there is a proxy
>> situation, maybe it would be best to define a field for this. Also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/2012 12:01 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 05:01 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
>> f...@gentoo.org Me
>> Proxy maintainer, assign bugs to proxied maintainer,
>> cc on bugs, but feel free to just fix the bugs
>>
>
>> I feel the
On 04/12/2012 08:01, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> I feel the description field is already overloaded when there is a proxy
> situation, maybe it would be best to define a field for this. Also
> english isn't primary language for everyone in the world so if the
> policy could actually be speci
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/2012 05:01 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
> f...@gentoo.org Me
> Proxy maintainer, assign bugs to proxied maintainer,
> cc on bugs, but feel free to just fix the bugs
>
>
> I feel the description field is already overloaded when t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/2012 04:23 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 08:10, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/02/2012 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>> As I was told in my recruiting process
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 01:18, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 3 December 2012 03:30, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2012 6:09 PM, "Rich Freeman" wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>> > > Only questio
On 4 December 2012 08:10, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/02/2012 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> As I was told in my recruiting process we usually don't just fix up
>> ebuilds of other devs unless it's trivial, very severe or something.
>>
On 4 December 2012 01:18, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 3 December 2012 03:30, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2012 6:09 PM, "Rich Freeman" wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> > > Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and
>> > > f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/2012 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
> As I was told in my recruiting process we usually don't just fix up
> ebuilds of other devs unless it's trivial, very severe or something.
>
> The usual process is nothing new: try to contact the maintainer, o
> In my opinion we should limit the amount of places where we document
policies and best practices. I suggest we keep only devmanual and PMS as
authoritative documents.
>
> In that case we should go forward and add these kind of policies to the
devmanual.
+1 from me
On 3 December 2012 03:30, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2012 6:09 PM, "Rich Freeman" wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
> > > Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and
> fix
> > > stuff.
> > > From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we tho
On Dec 2, 2012 6:09 PM, "Rich Freeman" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
> > Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and fix
> > stuff.
> > From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we thought 2-4 weeks depending on the
> > severity of the bug is fine. Of
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and fix
> stuff.
> From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we thought 2-4 weeks depending on the
> severity of the bug is fine. Ofc this should exclude major changes or
> delicate packages
28 matches
Mail list logo
