Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:38, Luis Medinas wrote: > Now the license problems are fixed and we can ship this on our portage > tree tarballs for our new releases etc... Err, I think the problem was for binpkg, we could already ship cdrtools on the portage tree tarballs... ebuilds are GPL2. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgphFjNrs5HlY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 16:59 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Friday 01 September 2006 15:45, Luis Medinas wrote: > > I'm sure that situation will be fixed by the upstream (Jörg) since it > > violates GPL license. About the debian fork we will take a look at it > > and see where's going. > > Read the Debian bug. Jörg Schilling is badmouthing Debian developers and > tells > everyone that they should _believe_him_ that the CDDL is compatible with the > GPL, while no one else thinks so. It is unlikely that the overly > self-convinced Jörg Schilling will change his mind. I'd be surprised, if the > situation will be fixed upstream. > > Now i know the real story since i've been talking with Debian Maintainers. So there's isn't anything to say but we are working close to upstream and they actually offer commit access to maintainers of another distros. Cdrkit project sounds much more like an open project than cdrtools so i'll be with them. This was pretty much what happened with Xfree/Xorg. So cdrtools will be the "close" project and cdrkit the "open" project. Like i said before Gentoo joined this new project. Now the license problems are fixed and we can ship this on our portage tree tarballs for our new releases etc... The package is in the tree and it's asking for testing before i can remove it from pkg.mask and provide the cdrtools virtual. -- Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~metalgod -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Yay Soc Release
You can find the code in my public_html on d.g.o[1] The git commit stuff will probably take a million years. I think I will have to find a better way to have commiting with git from GIT_DIR working, or I shall go and beat up linus until he implements the functionality I need ;) Feel free to try it however. Repoman scan should work fine ;) svn and cvs tested out well. Echangelog should work for all 3 systems. If there are systems you want supported you "basically" need to add them to the dict of dicts in repoman_vcs.py and then tag your new system into the SUPPORTED_VCS_SYSTEM's dict. I'd imagine bzr and mercurial support wouldn't be too bad. If you have any questions about that stuff, poke me. Bugs can go to my e-mail or on bugs assigned to me (either one works, although bugs is always preferred.) Echangelog is just a script, drop it somewhere and run it. The repoman tarball has instructions, expect an ebuild for it tomorrowish. [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/soc/releases/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] [adopt-a-dev] New Resource Offers and Requests / 2 Policy Changes
There are two adopt-a-developer policy changes. The max value limit for each item has been raised from $100 to $250. Things are going well and we plan on removing the limit entirely in the future. We're just waiting for an accountant to get back to Christel about some questions we have relating to taxes on personal gifts. We want the information so that we can inform developers about possible taxes on high value items and where to find more information. The other change relates to the maximum number of open requests per developer. During the user relations meeting we opted to limit the number of open requests to 4 per developer. If the developer has 4 open requests and needs something more urgently he or she can always ask us to remove an item to make room for a more urgently needed item. This is a temporary policy. In a few weeks we will evaluate if we want the policy to be permanent or if we want to try something else. Below are all of the community member offers and developer requests made in the last 7 days. I missed sending this out last week, but I'm working on automating these e-mails, so it shouldn't happen in the future. As always, the full list of offers and requests can be found on our project page http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/userrel/adopt-a-dev/index.xml -Thomas Community Member Offers === Offered Resource: GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool ; ISBN 1578701902 Name: Kurt Hindenburg Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Last Modified: 2006-09-02 14:46:44 New Developer Requests == Resource: Any ethernet card that is known to work in Linux and Mac OS X on a PowerMac G5. Purpose: To do testing of Java and other packages on ppc, ppc64, and maybe even ppc-macos. Name: Joshua Nichols Location: Boston, MA, USA Last Modified: 2006-08-31 16:18:17 Resource: orinoco gold usb wireless device Purpose: To help with the drivers. Name: Steev Klimaszewski Location: Tulsa, OK, USA Last Modified: 2006-08-31 16:05:37 Resource: Battery for a Japanese Sharp Mebius PC-CB1-CD to replace a dead battery (model number CE-BN12). Purpose: So that Steev isn't stuck to a power outlet. Name: Steev Klimaszewski Location: Tulsa, OK, USA Last Modified: 2006-08-31 16:08:12 Resource: A bluetooth USB dongle from this list ( http://www.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/features.html ) Purpose: Replacement of a usb dongle, required to perform development and tests on kdebluetooth and other bluetooth-related applications running on Gentoo. Also required to keep an up-to-date bluetooth guide. Name: Ioannis Aslanidis Location: Tarragona, Spain Last Modified: 2006-09-02 14:41:41 Resource: Intel Pentium 4 Northwood - 2.0A GHz Processor ( http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=535580/search=intel+pentium+4+2.0+ghz/ ) (2.0GHz, 512KB, 400 MHz, Socket 478 - MPN: BX80532PC2000D) Purpose: general development work, improve productivity Name: Chris White Location: CA, USA Last Modified: 2006-09-02 17:33:26 Resource: Any linux-supported DEC Alpha workstation with at least a 400MHz processor, >=128MB of memory, a supported PCI video card, and a CD-ROM (bonus if it can read CD-RW without a problem). Purpose: Support for the alpha architecture in the Gentoo Installer. Name: Andrew Gaffney Location: St. Louis, MO, USA Last Modified: 2006-09-04 15:29:05 pgpxgjkCvNG8t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP updates
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:53:44 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 42 (critical news) --> Change owner to zmedico? I had semi-unofficially taken over this one, and updated it with reference implementations etc. Last I knew it had been submitted to the council, but I never heard of the outcome. If Zac wants it though, go ahead. > 48 (QA role) --> I don't remember what happened w/ this one Council approved it, then Halcy0n quit and QA was without a leader so stagnated. However, I just took on that role with a view to getting things moving again, so given that the GLEP is more a statement of intent than something to be implemented I would say it can probably be marked final at some point. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Democracy: No silver bullet
On 9/3/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I really wish people would take the time to either ask the Release Engineering team, or learn how we work before they go off making accusations against us. There was no accusation there. I picked on X only for its popularity and relative ease of upgrading. But it is fair to say that I have no clue how releng actually works, and how you choose what to put in the snapshot, although I expect that there is much more to it than picking a random date on the calendar. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Democracy: No silver bullet
On 9/3/06, Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Richard Fish wrote: > The problem I see is that for Gentoo the releases are not really > useful milestones for most projects. A release is really significant That is not a problem. That is a feature. A small clarification may be necessary here. I wasn't pointing to a problem with the way Gentoo evolves, but with the idea that releases could be useful milestones for project roadmaps. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 02:59:43PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > Bryan Ãstergaard wrote: > > If people are randomly given bugzie privs (or any other privs) this is > > something we need to fix. And just to make this clear to all - handing > > out privs is only half the equation and it's already hard enough for > > recruiters to keep track of devs even though we have well defined > > procedures etc. for that. > > Then you better get to patching bugs, since I can hand out gentoo-dev > and portage-dev privs on bugs without any problem (I tried it on > ferringb to check even; and i took them away right after). > This is being fixed now. Gentoo-dev gives access to (some) restricted bugs but doesn't give editbugs privs and portage-dev was somebody hitting a wrong checkbox. Likely a long time ago but a simple mistake never the less and not something that should be considered normal. > >> B. Double bonus is that I don't even see why a GLEP is required? This > >> is a small subset of users using one resource (bugzilla) so perhaps > >> Infra and devrel and you can work out the requisite groups? Why is > >> there all this red tape? > > Because it's going to affect all devs if people don't need to pass > > quizzes (or we lower the threshhold substantially) before they can > > reassign, close, reopen etc. the maintainers bugs. > > And in this case I'm saying a subset. I'll use Java as an example. > Caster is like an awesome Java dude. Lets say I want to give him access > to bugs assigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Either I (as a member of that > herd/project) already have bugs perms to java bugs, or the group doesn't > exist and I need to ask JForman to make a java-bugs group and make it so > they can do stuff to bugs assigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I'm already in the > group I can just delegate the java perms to Caster and be done. > > Aside from the java bugs, no one else is affected. No other permissions > on bugs are granted. The user can only mess with java bugs. > This is going to be a maintainence nightmare for several reasons. 1. Very few people can create new bugzilla groups and they'd have to take time out to do that instead of (what I'd consider) more important bugzilla maintainence. 2. You can't delete groups easily (probably can't delete groups at all) as lots of bugzilla data might be related to these groups. End result would be an enormous amounts of groups in a relatively short time if we were to micromanage privs that way. 3. Who's going to clean up all these privs when people turn inactive? Recruiters are already overloaded as is and certainly don't need the extra management burden from this. I'd much rather spend time recruiting new devs and making sure we do a good job at that than trying to keep bugzilla privs somewhat clean. > >> Create a group; come up with a subset of bugs that they can access, add > >> user to group -> done. As long as they can't access my bugs; I really > >> shouldn't (and trust me I don't) care. > > Who's going to admin that? We already have the Arch Tester / Herd Tester > > projects that defines a proper way of achieving the goal as I see it. > > > > Only problem with Herd Testers / Arch Testers compared to genstefs goal > > is that HTs/ATs deal with packages in the tree while sunrise > > contributors deal with packages outside the tree. > > > > And personally I'd very much like to draw the line somewhere. Genstef > > made the GLEP extremely vague regarding contributors (on purpose) but > > guess what? Everybody who files a new bug, submits a fixed ebuild etc. > > are contributors. So should we just remove all the restrictions now? > > This is definitely something we need to define before moving on, no > > matter if the GLEP is eventually denied or accepted. > > I liked my definition in my earlier mail ;) Generally contributing > requires you know someone rather well, such that they proxy your changes > into the tree. That's not adequate imo. Lots of people seem genuinely interested in helping only to disappear a few days/weeks later. Part of what the ebuild quiz does is that it tries to make sure people are going to stick around for a while. It doesn't always succeed and neither does recruiters but I still think it's important that he have some defined bar (level?) that you need to pass. > > >> C. No real standard on any other fora. I don't need a GLEP to add > >> someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my > >> project's IRC channel. I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my > >> mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project > >> aliases. Why does this require one? > > Because this is about the entire Gentoo project and affects us all in a > > very direct way as opposed to random projects. > > I tried to make it clear above that it doesn't. I hope I succeeded. I still very much believe this affects all of gentoo, especially seen in light of the problems micromanaging bugzie privs would imply. Regards, B
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
Bryan Ãstergaard wrote: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: >> Stefan Schweizer wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize >>> bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the >>> devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now. >>> >>> This is also a submission for the new council when it meets. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Stefan >> Errr. on -devrel you noted you would just make people take the ebuild >> quiz and now devrel wants a GLEP again? >> >> I'll state the same thing I stated on that list. >> >> A. This already happens. I had bugs access for MONTHS before becoming >> a dev; I got assigned to the portage buggroup and I could edit portage >> bugs. Anyone already on the portage team could add me, so no nastiness >> for recruiters (or anyone else). > If people are randomly given bugzie privs (or any other privs) this is > something we need to fix. And just to make this clear to all - handing > out privs is only half the equation and it's already hard enough for > recruiters to keep track of devs even though we have well defined > procedures etc. for that. Then you better get to patching bugs, since I can hand out gentoo-dev and portage-dev privs on bugs without any problem (I tried it on ferringb to check even; and i took them away right after). >> B. Double bonus is that I don't even see why a GLEP is required? This >> is a small subset of users using one resource (bugzilla) so perhaps >> Infra and devrel and you can work out the requisite groups? Why is >> there all this red tape? > Because it's going to affect all devs if people don't need to pass > quizzes (or we lower the threshhold substantially) before they can > reassign, close, reopen etc. the maintainers bugs. And in this case I'm saying a subset. I'll use Java as an example. Caster is like an awesome Java dude. Lets say I want to give him access to bugs assigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Either I (as a member of that herd/project) already have bugs perms to java bugs, or the group doesn't exist and I need to ask JForman to make a java-bugs group and make it so they can do stuff to bugs assigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I'm already in the group I can just delegate the java perms to Caster and be done. Aside from the java bugs, no one else is affected. No other permissions on bugs are granted. The user can only mess with java bugs. >> Create a group; come up with a subset of bugs that they can access, add >> user to group -> done. As long as they can't access my bugs; I really >> shouldn't (and trust me I don't) care. > Who's going to admin that? We already have the Arch Tester / Herd Tester > projects that defines a proper way of achieving the goal as I see it. > > Only problem with Herd Testers / Arch Testers compared to genstefs goal > is that HTs/ATs deal with packages in the tree while sunrise > contributors deal with packages outside the tree. > > And personally I'd very much like to draw the line somewhere. Genstef > made the GLEP extremely vague regarding contributors (on purpose) but > guess what? Everybody who files a new bug, submits a fixed ebuild etc. > are contributors. So should we just remove all the restrictions now? > This is definitely something we need to define before moving on, no > matter if the GLEP is eventually denied or accepted. I liked my definition in my earlier mail ;) Generally contributing requires you know someone rather well, such that they proxy your changes into the tree. >> C. No real standard on any other fora. I don't need a GLEP to add >> someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my >> project's IRC channel. I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my >> mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project >> aliases. Why does this require one? > Because this is about the entire Gentoo project and affects us all in a > very direct way as opposed to random projects. I tried to make it clear above that it doesn't. I hope I succeeded. > > Regards, > Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP updates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Grant Goodyear wrote: > 42 (critical news) --> Change owner to zmedico? Yes, I'll adopt it. Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE/FW3/ejvha5XGaMRAvILAKCUtgAfK4MJzvcmDMnXKHDLiP+7qgCeNU/a b1umAqjbf5AGkJRmOmhjT+Y= =WCbR -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] treecleaner maskings
I've just package.masked media-video/lve and media-video/klvemkdvd which will be removed in 30 days unless someone offers to maintain them. See bug #145200 for more info. Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:54:02PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Josh Saddler wrote: > > Because as much as possible, we need to see something concrete, not "maybe > > an arch tester." We need to have a better definition of what "when needed > > is" and who these "some people" are -- think about it. Do we want a system > > that works like devship, but only halfway -- like you suggested, just > > passing the ebuild quiz -- or is something more needed? > > If it needs to be extended a new GLEP like this one can be written or this > one extended. This is only about bugzilla access, nothing more. So no, it > is meant to be as non-concrete as possible to allow usage in as many cases > as possible. > This practically means opening up bugzie to world + dog. Maybe not right now but being so non-concrete as you call it means we can never tell anybody no. All they have to do is calling themselves a contributor. Personally I think this is only going to lead to chaos and I'm not at all frilled by the idea. If this is to go forward it needs to be well-defined - handwaving simply isn't cutting it imo. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:59:44 +0200 Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An example for this has been obvious since the overlays project was > established. Bugs for overlays should be filed on bugs.gentoo.org and > will most likely get assigned to the developer/herd. This does allow > a contributor to fix the bug but only to mark it as fixed in bugzilla > when he is also an arch tester. Is it not enough just to re-assign such bugs to the contributor? The reason devs can resolve bugs is that they have write access to the tree and thus can incorporate a fix. If something is in an overlay, presumably the contributor has write access to that overlay, and should be the assignee of the bug. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:35:54AM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Alec Warner wrote: > > C. No real standard on any other fora. I don't need a GLEP to add > > someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my > > project's IRC channel. I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my > > mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project > > aliases. Why does this require one? > > devrel, plasmaroo, asked me to send this here. And hparker wanted me to send > it in, too. Cannot really answer that myself, but obviously there is no > working solution without a GLEP. I have two users on queue with their > ebuild quiz ready. Show me a way to get access for them if you think that > this is unneeded! > It's very much needed imo. See other reply where I explain exactly why it's needed. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > Stefan Schweizer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize > > bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the > > devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now. > > > > This is also a submission for the new council when it meets. > > > > Best regards, > > Stefan > > Errr. on -devrel you noted you would just make people take the ebuild > quiz and now devrel wants a GLEP again? > > I'll state the same thing I stated on that list. > > A. This already happens. I had bugs access for MONTHS before becoming > a dev; I got assigned to the portage buggroup and I could edit portage > bugs. Anyone already on the portage team could add me, so no nastiness > for recruiters (or anyone else). If people are randomly given bugzie privs (or any other privs) this is something we need to fix. And just to make this clear to all - handing out privs is only half the equation and it's already hard enough for recruiters to keep track of devs even though we have well defined procedures etc. for that. > > B. Double bonus is that I don't even see why a GLEP is required? This > is a small subset of users using one resource (bugzilla) so perhaps > Infra and devrel and you can work out the requisite groups? Why is > there all this red tape? Because it's going to affect all devs if people don't need to pass quizzes (or we lower the threshhold substantially) before they can reassign, close, reopen etc. the maintainers bugs. > > Create a group; come up with a subset of bugs that they can access, add > user to group -> done. As long as they can't access my bugs; I really > shouldn't (and trust me I don't) care. Who's going to admin that? We already have the Arch Tester / Herd Tester projects that defines a proper way of achieving the goal as I see it. Only problem with Herd Testers / Arch Testers compared to genstefs goal is that HTs/ATs deal with packages in the tree while sunrise contributors deal with packages outside the tree. And personally I'd very much like to draw the line somewhere. Genstef made the GLEP extremely vague regarding contributors (on purpose) but guess what? Everybody who files a new bug, submits a fixed ebuild etc. are contributors. So should we just remove all the restrictions now? This is definitely something we need to define before moving on, no matter if the GLEP is eventually denied or accepted. > > C. No real standard on any other fora. I don't need a GLEP to add > someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my > project's IRC channel. I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my > mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project > aliases. Why does this require one? Because this is about the entire Gentoo project and affects us all in a very direct way as opposed to random projects. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Project proudly presents *drums* anigel *applaud*
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 09:43:23AM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: > Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > At least there's one sane property on this guy - he doesn't like the Perl > > language. And for that alone I disregard his mushroom incident... as long as > > he doesn't think he sees Larry fly. > > Bah. Can't believe I read through all that to get insulted. > So you consider yourself sane huh? -- The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>> pgpPsrYOI7Qlj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
Josh Saddler wrote: > Stefan Schweizer wrote: >>> they are not defined by their status. I wonder why this word is causing >>> problems .. >>> >>> The status is maybe being an arch tester. This GLEP is not about status, >>> only about giving some people bugzilla access when needed. >>> >>> -stefan > > Because as much as possible, we need to see something concrete, not "maybe an > arch tester." We need to have a better definition of what "when needed is" and > who these "some people" are -- think about it. Do we want a system that works > like devship, but only halfway -- like you suggested, just passing the ebuild > quiz -- or is something more needed? These "some people" are people that I deem fit to help on bugzilla for a project for which I am lead (or have the leads approval). "When needed" is when I think I need people for my project. Concrete enough for you? Heck my project has 3 non-developer "contributors" right now[1]. Do they have bugs access yet? I don't think so; but I don't think they will need it either. Then again, afaik all 3 are either AT's or are becoming devs soon ;) [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
Stefan Schweizer wrote: > it > is meant to be as non-concrete as possible to allow usage in as many cases > as possible. Which makes it pretty pointless. Really, this GLEP says almost nothing, it's simply too vague to express any intend. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
Josh Saddler wrote: > Because as much as possible, we need to see something concrete, not "maybe > an arch tester." We need to have a better definition of what "when needed > is" and who these "some people" are -- think about it. Do we want a system > that works like devship, but only halfway -- like you suggested, just > passing the ebuild quiz -- or is something more needed? If it needs to be extended a new GLEP like this one can be written or this one extended. This is only about bugzilla access, nothing more. So no, it is meant to be as non-concrete as possible to allow usage in as many cases as possible. -Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Project proudly presents *drums* anigel *applaud*
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 13:06 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > Yes indeed my best audience, Gentoo now has a new developer in town. His > name? Not important. His function? Not important either. His looks? Ugly as > hell... why we want him? Because I am fond of french wifes, and he has one. > > Yes indeed my best audience, anigel is a Frenchie, a "Limougeaud" to be > exact (which is an inhabitant of Limoges, the préfecture of the Haute-Vienne > département). Stupefied? I know I am. And not only does he have a wife, he > also has dinner for vapier - a beautiful young cat. > > Yes indeed my best audience, he is an animal lover. Fits right in. Jforman > has another goatsitter and this one wont drive to jforman's house. No, he'll > ride his bike to it. > > Yes indeed, my best audience, anigel seems to have a good condition. While > most of us have long saluted their bike before they turned 26, anigel still > loves to cycle through the woods, or just walking, looking for mushrooms. > > Err, wait a minute! Mushrooms !?! > > Aaarghh, what kind of freak did I introduce here? Another one for the pile > of nuts in which we can find seemant, g2boojum and dsd. So now the nut pile > has been extended with Hubert Mercier, a French Forum Administrator who in > real life administers Unix systems. > > At least there's one sane property on this guy - he doesn't like the Perl > language. And for that alone I disregard his mushroom incident... as long as > he doesn't think he sees Larry fly. Welcome onboard anigel! And as always, a Swift intro made me chuckle, well done Sven. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Project proudly presents *drums* anigel *applaud*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sven Vermeulen wrote: > At least there's one sane property on this guy - he doesn't like the Perl > language. And for that alone I disregard his mushroom incident... as long as > he doesn't think he sees Larry fly. Bah. Can't believe I read through all that to get insulted. - -- - -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E - -o()o-- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE/C17q1ztTp5/Ti4RAqEcAKCnEuE85WrdstAVsSgJ7zPHV4aS7wCeIb/3 m92ZXIMA8U5HMIZk0rOmc0M= =vdbf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Project proudly presents *drums* anigel *applaud*
Yes indeed my best audience, Gentoo now has a new developer in town. His name? Not important. His function? Not important either. His looks? Ugly as hell... why we want him? Because I am fond of french wifes, and he has one. Yes indeed my best audience, anigel is a Frenchie, a "Limougeaud" to be exact (which is an inhabitant of Limoges, the préfecture of the Haute-Vienne département). Stupefied? I know I am. And not only does he have a wife, he also has dinner for vapier - a beautiful young cat. Yes indeed my best audience, he is an animal lover. Fits right in. Jforman has another goatsitter and this one wont drive to jforman's house. No, he'll ride his bike to it. Yes indeed, my best audience, anigel seems to have a good condition. While most of us have long saluted their bike before they turned 26, anigel still loves to cycle through the woods, or just walking, looking for mushrooms. Err, wait a minute! Mushrooms !?! Aaarghh, what kind of freak did I introduce here? Another one for the pile of nuts in which we can find seemant, g2boojum and dsd. So now the nut pile has been extended with Hubert Mercier, a French Forum Administrator who in real life administers Unix systems. At least there's one sane property on this guy - he doesn't like the Perl language. And for that alone I disregard his mushroom incident... as long as he doesn't think he sees Larry fly. Sven Vermeulen -- The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>> pgpsWIpsgWCL1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
On Monday 04 September 2006 04:32, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > they are not defined by their status. I wonder why this word is causing > problems .. of course they are defined by their status ... you cant go handing out bugzilla access to joe blow because he "contributed something" > The status is maybe being an arch tester. This GLEP is not about status, > only about giving some people bugzilla access when needed. accept that you failed to qualify who these "some people" are -mike pgpZIkl2AovmE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stefan Schweizer wrote: > they are not defined by their status. I wonder why this word is causing > problems .. > > The status is maybe being an arch tester. This GLEP is not about status, > only about giving some people bugzilla access when needed. > > -stefan Because as much as possible, we need to see something concrete, not "maybe an arch tester." We need to have a better definition of what "when needed is" and who these "some people" are -- think about it. Do we want a system that works like devship, but only halfway -- like you suggested, just passing the ebuild quiz -- or is something more needed? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE++/NrsJQqN81j74RAvGSAJ9wXcfX21fsYVzUMQA5hAXglndhzACguKQ7 /3ISVFKVzH9Qjbc5LRr4aVM= =RBgK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 04 September 2006 02:45, Stefan Schweizer wrote: >> Josh Saddler wrote: >> > Stefan Schweizer wrote: >> > [. . .] >> > >> > Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does >> > one *become* a "contributor" to get these rights? >> > >> > This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it. >> >> As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No >> special status involved. > > huh ? if contributors dont require special status, why are you proposing > a GLEP ? > -mike they are not defined by their status. I wonder why this word is causing problems .. The status is maybe being an arch tester. This GLEP is not about status, only about giving some people bugzilla access when needed. -stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
On Monday 04 September 2006 02:45, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Josh Saddler wrote: > > Stefan Schweizer wrote: > > [. . .] > > > > Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one > > *become* a "contributor" to get these rights? > > > > This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it. > > As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No > special status involved. huh ? if contributors dont require special status, why are you proposing a GLEP ? -mike pgpdkOX5oHagY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Elfyn McBratney wrote: >> thus that developer can request >> write access for them. It's worked like that for at least two >> years... > > I did that and devrel asked me to write a GLEP. If you can show me another > way to do it, I would like to hear about it! I have two contributors with > ebuild quiz here. Do note that a project can require a GLEP to be written, but can approve it at the project level without requiring a council vote. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
Josh Saddler wrote: > Stefan Schweizer wrote: >> Josh Saddler wrote: >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Stefan Schweizer wrote: >>> [. . .] >>> >>> Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does >>> one *become* a "contributor" to get these rights? >>> >>> This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it. >> >> As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No >> special status involved. >> >> - Stefan > > Contributing what? Contributing how much? Contributing how long? How is > quality measured? Is there a minimum level somewhere? X amount of ebuilds? > X amount of patches for docs/packages, or donating hardware, or adminning > a webnode somewhere? It does not matter. The real requirement is not to be defined as a "contributor" but to take the ebuild quiz: "To ensure that not everyone who asks for it can get access to edit bugs it is required to complete the ebuild quiz prior to requesting access" -Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP updates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Grant Goodyear wrote: 38 (forums folk) --> ?? What's the status here? glep-0038.txt 1.5 10 months tomk Changed the status from Accepted to Final Thus, --> IF /Anders - -- Anders Hellgren (kallamej) Gentoo Forums Administrator -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE+9SNFX025WX+RG4RAhRiAKDcMHZ/nRHWN0PCU7i8ZOj7B0TxcgCeNbHv Gtd3fZLI6U9PU9bBRDYnb3A= =nHip -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:54:33 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > If you don't care whether a package is stable or not, just let the > > arch team go ahead and do what they need to do to stabilise when > > they wish to. The role of package maintainer has nothing to do with > > stabilisation, which is the preserve of the arch teams. > > Um, sure it does. We're not going to stabilize something without > attempting to contact the maintainer first. If it's > maintainer-needed we'll just go ahead though. Yeah; I meant that ebuild maintainers don't do stabilisation, the arch teams do, and that if the ebuild maintainer isn't interested in whether the package is stable or not, they can leave it for the arch team (and ATs) to do. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Josh Saddler wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Stefan Schweizer wrote: >> [. . .] >> >> Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one >> *become* a "contributor" to get these rights? >> >> This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it. > > As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No > special status involved. > > - Stefan Contributing what? Contributing how much? Contributing how long? How is quality measured? Is there a minimum level somewhere? X amount of ebuilds? X amount of patches for docs/packages, or donating hardware, or adminning a webnode somewhere? Things to think about. :) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE+9BCrsJQqN81j74RAk30AKCj4vWD5SK04N2Cje/lVY/d97tfcgCffKe4 s0OrRkREdAXg0ZKbJww6E8M= =BeJ5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
