On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:56:58PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> In any case, I don't think it is necessary to actually modify the DCO.
Ah, good. Then the verbatim copy license is sufficient, and we don't
need to decide if the GPLv2 with Linus' exception applies.
> I don't believe that it require
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:43 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> There's no Signed-off-by on the commits adding the DCO to the Linux
> tree ;). The only information I can find claiming copyright and
> licensing by one of the DCO authors is at
> http://developercertificate.org/. I suppose you could alter
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:35:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:27 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:27 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that t
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files
> >> themselves were not modified - not the c
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files
>> themselves were not modified - not the commit message.
>
> The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don'
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files
> themselves were not modified - not the commit message.
The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think adjusting
clauses is legal. And if you're modifying ne
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > Another issue, should we require "Signed-off-by:" lines? At least
>> > for things that are contributed by users?
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Another issue, should we require "Signed-off-by:" lines? At least
> > for things that are contributed by users?
> >
> > …
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I had circulated t
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, hasufell wrote:
>
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow
>
But so far, not many people have been particularly interested in
the details of these things. I'm also not sure if the ML is the
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, hasufell wrote:
>>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow
>>> But so far, not many people have been particularly interested in
>>> the details of these things. I'm also not sure if the ML is the
>>> right way to figure out these details.
Another issue, shou
Michał Górny:
> Dnia 2014-09-19, o godz. 18:17:12
> "Andreas HAttel (dilfridge)" napisał(a):
>
>> dilfridge14/09/19 18:17:12
>>
>> Modified: ChangeLog perl-module.eclass
>> Log:
>> Remove support for EAPI 1, 2, 3 in perl-module.eclass (no packages left in
>> the tree)
>
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Also, CVS gets your name wrong. I wonder how it is possible with such
> an awesome modern piece of technology ;).
>
CVS itself does support unicode in the commit messages. I have no
idea where the name comes from in the emails that go out,
Dnia 2014-09-19, o godz. 18:17:12
"Andreas HAttel (dilfridge)" napisał(a):
> dilfridge14/09/19 18:17:12
>
> Modified: ChangeLog perl-module.eclass
> Log:
> Remove support for EAPI 1, 2, 3 in perl-module.eclass (no packages left in
> the tree)
This could have used some kin
On 09/22/2014 08:40 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, hasufell wrote:
>
>> Ulrich Mueller:
>>> | • atomic commits (one logical change)
>>>
>>> A version bump plus cleaning up older ebuilds will be considered
>>> one logical change, I suppose?
>
>> I'd consider it two logical
On 09/22/14 06:31, Michael Weber wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/20/2014 06:33 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
On 2014.09.18 00:31, Jack Morgan wrote:
Hello,
The PowerPC development team has had our 2nd monthly meeting and
I wanted to provide an update on where we are.
[
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/20/2014 06:33 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2014.09.18 00:31, Jack Morgan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The PowerPC development team has had our 2nd monthly meeting and
>> I wanted to provide an update on where we are.
>>
> [snip]
>
>> I've sent emai
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:56:04 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> How can we distinguish between accidental and intentional stable
> keyword removals? :)
(The lack of) Proper commit messages that point out those removals! ;)
But well, yeah, that'll require consistency and so on...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:03:57 +0200
Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> As I pointed out, getting the right code into the tree is not the
> problem here. It is extra work over the current way of doing it
> (since I need to deal with a local commit that can't be ff'd or
> rebased as git is very line-oriented
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Devs doing gentoo all day could easily do one or two pushes a day, with
> many commits in each. Those with less time might do the same work over
> several days or a week and might push just once or twice that week, if
> non
20 matches
Mail list logo
