Re: [gentoo-dev] Git commit mails/CIA.vc notifications
On 04-02-2011 03:26:16 +0100, Christian Ruppert wrote: > b) gentoo-comm...@lists.gentoo.org/mailinglist commit mails. Thanks a ton, this is really appreciated! -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Git commit mails/CIA.vc notifications
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote: > Hey guys, > > We've finally written a git hook which a) sends cia.vc notifications and > b) gentoo-comm...@lists.gentoo.org/mailinglist commit mails. > This is great news! I've been wanting this since 2009 :) Thanks for your work! -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
[gentoo-dev] Git commit mails/CIA.vc notifications
Hey guys, We've finally written a git hook which a) sends cia.vc notifications and b) gentoo-comm...@lists.gentoo.org/mailinglist commit mails. cia.vc is enabled by default. All repositories in user/ (So user overlays) are using the "gentoo-user" cia.vc project name. All others use by default "gentoo" as cia.vc project name. If *you* as repository owner want a different project name then please poke me or the other overlays admins and we'll fix it. The project name for user overlays will not be changed. All "gentoo" project commits will also go to gentoo-comm...@lists.gentoo.org by default. We can send to additional mailing list or address too. It is also possible to disable cia or mailinglist notifications. Private repositories are excluded from cia and gentoo-commits mails but it's still possible to add a other mailinglist/address. Regarding the "gentoo-user" commits... Shall we add a new mailinglist for it? For now no cia.vc notifications will be send to #gentoo-commits and no mailinglist will be used by default. -- Regards, Christian Ruppert Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure member Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches
On 02/02/2011 11:42 PM, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: > > For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to touch > ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles > should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that > !arch member is not allowed to touch arch-specific profiles. Anyway, KDE 4.6 > will be unmasked tomorrow. > The general rule I have been using is that if the profile change only has an effect on the package you maintain then it's ok to do it yourself. This is probably something that should be nailed down somewhere. I think I will propose it for the next council meeting. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Touching profiles
On Thursday 03 February 2011 10:00:11 Kacper Kowalik wrote: > > KDE: I would like to unmask KDE-4.6.0 in base, but that requires mask in > ppc64/package.mask. Can I do it? > PPC64: Sure, go ahead. > > and it would have taken approx. 30s Hi Kacper, I'm really glad you are taking care of this now, it improves the situation enormously. (Some months ago, I tried to do exactly what you suggested. * I filed a bug, * tried to ping the arch on irc about a week later, * and sent two e-mails to the arch alias (as far as I remember). None of this elicited ANY response at all. Which, understandably, leads to some frustration if the issue could be cleared up in 30s.) Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Touching profiles
W dniu 03.02.2011 08:39, Torsten Veller pisze: > * Theo Chatzimichos : >> For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to >> touch >> ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles >> should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that >> !arch member is not allowed to touch arch-specific profiles. Just to be clear I was talking about package.mask file. Kitten-forbid you tweak e.g. make.defaults. Honestly, I don't see the reasons why dev should be forbid to *add* pkgs to package.mask file for other profiles that inherit base. *Removing* is quite different, but again common sense advise you shouldn't lift it until reason for masking is gone. That you cannot verify if you're not an arch member. > The situation is complicated: > - Some arch teams don't want other devs to touch "their" profiles: > "DON'T TOUCH THIS FILE. Instead, file a bug and assign it to..." > But this arch is neiter mentioned in the handbook nor in the manual: > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=5#doc_chap4 > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/archs/index.html Clearly if something is written in bold and at the very top of the file you should respect. I'm sure there are reasons for it and I've never seen that particular arch being unresponsive. > - The devhandbook[2] is also kind of unmaintained. > Devmanual and -handbook are waiting for a merge AFAIR. > > - And there is already a stalled bug[3] about "Developer Handbook should > document how/when to touch arch profiles' files" > > Summary: You do it wrong either way. The problem actually boils down to asking... Arch team members are out there on irc, have mail aliases, etc. This very thread was started due to lack of communication. It could have looked like that: KDE: I would like to unmask KDE-4.6.0 in base, but that requires mask in ppc64/package.mask. Can I do it? PPC64: Sure, go ahead. and it would have taken approx. 30s Cheers, Kacper signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
