Tach Matti, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Matti Bickel schrieb:
> Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so
> arch devs could actually see what we're running. Is this still needed or
> is the number of ATs small enough to keep that in head-R
Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
> I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on
> stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT
> comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all
Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
> Inlining emerge info in comments bloats the e-mail message to roughly
> 2.5 times the normal size. I could have spoken out to get AT comments
> banned altogether or to urge arches with AT teams to find a
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:56:18 + (UTC)
"Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even back before it became the "in" thing, I was posting emerge
> --info as attachments, because it simply fit the bill -- bugzy /says/
> to put long stuff as attachments. I never did quite understand why
> all that ad
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:51:56 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes
> > longer
> > - you have to go to the web to read the attachment
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline
> emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling up
> and down a bug when trying to determine what triggers a bug. However
> tha
Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
> One solution might be to open your own AT bug, make the stabilisation
> bug depend on it, and use the AT bug to have ATs post their `emerge
> info`. Then, when testing and stabilisation is finished for y
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:40:23 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline
> > emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by sc
On 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer) wrote:
> Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
>
> Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
> > One solution might be to open your own AT bug, make the stabilisation
> > bug depend on it, and use the AT b
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ATs can inform you whether something works in the comment to an
> attachment, which, unlike the attachment, will end up in my mailbox.
Ok, so i sample my emerge --info > myconfig.txt and attach that. This is ok
with me. However, i propose that this funct
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:25:11 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order to decide to change how things are currently done, you need
> to show that it is better for a majority of the people affected.
(N minus 1 of N arches) times (the number of arch devs minus the number
of $ARCH
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:46:33 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I explained from the outset that this change pertains to stabilisation
> bugs. If you are not an arch dev, then why are you taking the opposite
> side in a discussion of stabilisation bugs which by their very nature
> o
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 16:46 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> N -1 arch dev's comfort against N arch devs' annoyance[1].
> [1] Note that I am aware that not all other-arch devs might experience
> inline `emerge info` for other arches as annoying.
I am on the alpha, amd64, and x86 arch teams. I ha
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 20:24 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 21:11 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:03:26 + Ferris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > | So the "glue" is rather easy; problem is the specific balloting
> > | method. STV suppo
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:27:29 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am on the alpha, amd64, and x86 arch teams. I have found that even
> emails from architectures I'm not currently looking at tend to have a
> great significance. It seems to me that most of the failures are
> USE-f
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 18:00 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> And do you propose ATs still attach `emerge info` in this solution?
No. It really should be inline. I'm sorry if you think that 5K seems
like a lot of "spam" but having to open a browser just to look at
"emerge --info" is a complete wast
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> ex.
>>
>> gcc 4.1.1 works on x86 with the following:
>>
>> USE="gtk nls -bootstrap -build -doc -fortran -gcj -hardened -ip28
>> -ip32r10k -mudflap -multislot -nocxx -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test
>> -vanilla"
>
> Looks OK to me. But hey, aren't arch
See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141806
Provides caching and release tag support for SVN.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Mark Stier wrote:
> See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141806
>
> Provides caching and release tag support for SVN.
sorry - I do not see the need for a new eclass here. Can you please instead
modify the subversion eclass and add support for what you want to do?
Best regards,
Stefan
--
sorry - I do not see the need for a new eclass here. Can you please instead
modify the subversion eclass and add support for what you want to do?
I could if I'd see any reason for that.
Best regards,
Mark
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Mark Stier wrote:
sorry - I do not see the need for a new eclass here. Can you please
instead
modify the subversion eclass and add support for what you want to do?
I could if I'd see any reason for that.
Going the opposite way, you duplicate much of svn.eclass for one piece
of functionalit
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri,
11 Aug 2006 12:36:35 +0200:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:56:18 + (UTC)
> "Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [re. posting AT configs somewhere]
>> I like the idea above, tho. For ATs especially, having som
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 23:04:19 +0200 Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I'm interested in arguments whether patches should sit directly
| within the portage tree or downloaded when needed.
|
| My feeling: downloading on demand is better.
|
| + makes the tree smaller, saves space, saves net
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
No. It really should be inline. I'm sorry if you think that 5K seems
like a lot of "spam" but having to open a browser just to look at
"emerge --info" is a complete waste of time.
*ding*
it's also nice to have that information actually _in_ my mailbox and not
of at
Duncan wrote:
Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:59:51 +0200:
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS,
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one, not to
mention specifying no version at all). Including the category means
arch devs won
26 matches
Mail list logo
