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 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 Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:09:11 -0700
Greg KH wrote:
> Please
> tell me exactly how you are going to evaluate which fixes I make are
> security fixes, and you know which to pick and choose from.
Some kind of annotation with tags would make this kind of thing easy;
I'm not saying it is your task to
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 23:17:36 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> This thread derailed as usual. The kernel team made a decision.
Perhaps it did, perhaps it didn't; I do not intend to discuss this but
to rather clarify the decision that was made, as a matter of support.
The reason the reply was on the
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:32:39 +0200
Manuel Rüger wrote:
> On 07/27/2013 03:28 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > On 27/07/13 10:56, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> >> How about dropping vanilla-sources and adding a "vanilla" USE flag
> >> to gentoo-sources?
> > Then we might as well just hav
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
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 Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:28:59 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and at
> least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far as I
> know there shouldn't be any breakage.
A few team developers is not a large enough test base for a
On 7/08/2013 20:34, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
* every atom needs a "=" in front, and
* "Please stabilize XXX" should always be replaced by "XXX stabilization".
Those two are actually useful. There are many scripts used by ATs that
parse title field. One could argue: "Fix your damn scripts" but in t
On 7/08/2013 07:46, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
Besides the finer technical points of bug maintenance, it simply
infuriates me that anyone would think of bug reports in the possessive.
This is not the way to improve the distro. You're on the wrong track
there. And you weren't being friendly.
In this ca
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:28:59 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and at
>> least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far as I
>> know there shouldn't be any breakage.
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 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, 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 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 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
Greetings,
Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
systemd.
What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
restriction, enabling all non systemd users to profit from this
eye-candy as well.
I raise the freedom of choice card here. And deliberatel
On 7/08/2013 22:18, Tom Wijsman wrote:
We usually take it a step further, putting the actual error there; if
the maintainer reads the error, it will be clear it failed to build:
"=kde-base/kmail-4.8.10 with GCC 4.8 - File:Line:Char: Error: Reason"
Is there any benefit to adding = in this case?
On 7/08/2013 22:41, hasufell wrote:
You are a bug wrangler and should have the
authority to mess with anything in bugzilla.
Don't forget that anybody can start a project, even if it conflicts with
other projects. While Jeroen's experience certainly gives him a more
insight regarding bugzilla
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:00:51 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:28:59 -0500
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> >> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and
> >> at least one user, using OpenRc from git with
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
> systemd.
>
> What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
> restriction, enabling all non systemd users to profit from this
> eye-
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 22:45:55 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 7/08/2013 22:18, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > We usually take it a step further, putting the actual error there;
> > if the maintainer reads the error, it will be clear it failed to
> > build:
> >
> > "=kde-base/kmail-4.8.10 with GCC 4.8 -
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 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 22:55:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 7/08/2013 22:41, hasufell wrote:
> > You are a bug wrangler and should have the
> > authority to mess with anything in bugzilla.
>
> Don't forget that anybody can start a project, even if it conflicts
> with other projects. While Je
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 7/08/2013 22:41, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> You are a bug wrangler and should have the
>> authority to mess with anything in bugzilla.
>
> Don't forget that anybody can start a project, even if it conflicts with
> other projects. While Jeroen
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> It's at the maintainer's decision to go ahead or not; there's nobody
> going to stop the maintainer from adding it to ~. But there are people
> that going to complain (users), take action (QA), ... when hell does
> break loose because of careles
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, 07 Aug 2013 09:14:14 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
>
> > What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
> > restriction, enabling all non systemd users to profit from this
> > eye-candy as well.
> >
> > I r
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, 7 Aug 2013 09:46:49 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Having two bug wrangler projects whose main function ends up being
> fighting revert wars over subject line formatting and writing policies
> denouncing the other project is counter-productive.
Whether you have two individuals or two projec
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:55:05 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> We're basically on the same page, so I won't respond to most of your
> email.
Same.
> I have to say that QA on Gentoo is FAR better than it ever has been in
> the past.
It is definitely very good; the only thing that currently bothers me,
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:23:22 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > If you have strong feelings and want to contribute to how bugs are
> > managed, join the bug wranglers.
>
> Asked several times to be added, I'm still not listed;
This appears to have been a communication problem, in specific with
what th
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Possibly, but it be just another experiment waiting in a slowly
> progressing queue; the one the CVS --> Git move is in. We have to be
> fair, while experiments are neat and all that; they have hardly became
> successful lately, it's as if our
El mié, 07-08-2013 a las 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber escribió:
> Greetings,
>
> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
> systemd.
>
> What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
> restriction, enabling all non systemd users to profit from this
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> While people can scream, complaint and rant all they want about choice;
> it isn't going to happen if nobody is going to implement it, until that
> happens following whatever upstream does is the only reasonable thing
> to do. Or if you really w
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> > person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
> > naming of the packag
-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, 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 08/07/2013 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, 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
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:00:57PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > So, my choices, in no particular order, would be, netifrc, networkrc or,
> > if neither of those fly, keep gentoo-oldnet.
> Robin hasn't responded, so my choice for this is netifrc (network
> interface rc). Someone made a comment ab
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> what if hell breaks loose next time?
We fix it.
//Peter
pgpoxOD8NPi7O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Besides, who does an emerge -u world without first checking to see
> > what will be updated?
>
> Some people do
They deserve a broken system.
//Peter
pgp8bIGEpU77h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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, 7 Aug 2013 21:01:06 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Some people do, but that's not what this is about.
>
> They deserve a broken system.
Some people do, but that's not what this is about.
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > what if hell breaks loose next time?
>
> We fix it.
Fi
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 Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:32:39AM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
> AFAIK, the status is "unimplemented, and nobody's working on it".
No, I did post implementation patches for much of it back when the GLEPs
were in process. The overwhelming message from other devs at the time
was that it should happen at th
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 08/07/2013 09:55 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:32:39AM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
>> AFAIK, the status is "unimplemented, and nobody's working on it".
> No, I did post implementation patches for much of it back when the GLEPs
> were in process. The overwhelming message from
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
Dnia 2013-08-07, o godz. 21:02:30
Peter Stuge napisał(a):
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > Besides, who does an emerge -u world without first checking to see
> > > what will be updated?
> >
> > Some people do
>
> They deserve a broken system.
Please keep your comments to yourself and do not add them
Dnia 2013-08-07, o godz. 12:00:57
William Hubbs napisał(a):
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> > > person to respond to.
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:09:11 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > Please
> > tell me exactly how you are going to evaluate which fixes I make are
> > security fixes, and you know which to pick and choose from.
>
> Some kind of annotation wit
Greg KH wrote:
> See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know
> some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway.
I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always
the one with the most fixes.
Rather than separating "bug fixes" from "sec
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:01:14AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Well, it sounds totally like motif to me but that doesn't really
> matter :D. Though I'd cut it down to 'netif' unless that's taken.
> Without the 'rc' is more nicely pronounced.
"netif" is taken unfortunately, it's hard to differentia
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know
> > some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway.
>
> I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always
> t
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:47:15PM +0200, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 09:55 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:32:39AM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
> >> AFAIK, the status is "unimplemented, and nobody's working on it".
> > No, I did post implementation patches for much of it ba
On 08/07/2013 09:14 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
>> systemd.
>>
>> What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
>> restriction
On 08/08/2013 04:47 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 09:55 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:32:39AM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
>>> AFAIK, the status is "unimplemented, and nobody's working on it".
>> No, I did post implementation patches for much of it back when the GLEPs
>>
Hello, fellow developers.
On behalf of Python team, I would like to announce that we're
officially discontinuing support for Python 2.5, Python 3.1
and PyPy 1.9.
If you still actively use any of those implementations, please migrate
to a newer version. We have ensured already that no in-tree pack
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:56:58AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, fellow developers.
>
> On behalf of Python team, I would like to announce that we're
> officially discontinuing support for Python 2.5, Python 3.1
> and PyPy 1.9.
Could you please update:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/Python/py
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > Some kind of annotation with tags would make this kind of thing
> > easy; I'm not saying it is your task to apply such annotations to
> > commits, but it would rather be the task
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:19:43 -0700
Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do
> > > know some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such
> > > anyway.
> >
> > I
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 09:14 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
> >> systemd.
> >>
> >> What are t
On 08/07/2013 10:16 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Also, I think we should stop spending a lot of time trying to keep it
> working with openrc, we simply don't have resources to do that at the
> moment (even Debian/Ubuntu people are stick with systemd-204 because
> they don't have resources to keep login
Alex Alexander posted on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 05:51:38 +0300 as excerpted:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
>> On 08/07/2013 09:14 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilizati
On 08/08/2013 01:21 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Alex Alexander posted on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 05:51:38 +0300 as excerpted:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/07/2013 09:14 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
>
>>>
On 8/08/2013 07:52, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
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.
I think at least one bug wrangler already uses a local script to do
something similar to that.
Any id
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Robin H Johnson wrote:
> You also asked about PMS, and I'm wondering if PMS specifies the
> Manifest contents at all, and/or if it needs updates for
> MetaManifest.
PMS doesn't specify the Manifest format, but refers to GLEP 44, so
probably this reference should be updat
70 matches
Mail list logo
