On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote:
> I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to
> competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some
> sort of limited ability to "temporarily" take away write access to the
> tree until de
Lance Albertson wrote:
snip
...
I tend to agree with Donnie on this partially. Devrel's main focus isn't
the QA of the tree, its dealing with developers. QA should have the
authority to limit access to the tree if someone isn't following the
guidelines properly. They are the ones with the technic
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 11:10 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> As far as devrel goes, call me a traditionalist but I think while infra
> should be able to do emergency deactivations (and afaik nobody's ever
> said they shouldn't) devrel should continue to be responsible for
> disciplinary issues inclu
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 5:22 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> I would like there to be a clause that infra has the ability to at least
> temporarily revoke access to have the ability to protect our servers if
> something came up quickly. I've always made sure any permanent removals
> go through de
Hello all,
The GNOME herd is now ready for 2.12.0 to be tested.
The gnome-2.12.0.ebuild should hit the mirrors shortly. ( just committed)
Please see this document for information on how to test:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~allanonjl/gnome/2.12.0/testing.instructions.txt
Thanks, and happy bug hunting
Frank Schafer wrote:
I'm still on the kernel from the life-cd. The self compiled kernel has
the highmem option set to off (I have only 1GB). I'm on x86 Intel
Celeron M and have CHOST set to i686-pc-linux-gnu and CFLAGS="-O2
-march=pentium2"
Um, why pentium2? The Celeron-M is the same core
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:21:42PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with
> > different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> GLEP's are developed after the details are ironed out in public developer
> forums ... their purpose isnt to fast track changes through the Gentoo
> council to kill long threads
>
> not saying that is what you meant, just mak
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 10:21 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with
> > different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what
> > devrel's responsibilities are
>
> It sounds like somebody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with
> different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what
> devrel's responsibilities are
It sounds like somebody needs to take a look at
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 08:22 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>It certainly says they're responsible for adding and removing
> >>developers, but I don't see anything about them being solely responsible
> >>for revoking access.
> >
> > no, nowhere does it say 'devrel is th
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>It certainly says they're responsible for adding and removing
>>developers, but I don't see anything about them being solely responsible
>>for revoking access.
>
>
> no, nowhere does it say 'devrel is the only team which may revoke access',
> but
> it is the only team w
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:59 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > as avenj pointed out, current 'mission statement' of devrel says that
> > they handle the issue of actually revoking a dev's access
>
> I thought this was written somewhere too, but I can't seem to find it
> a
Mike Frysinger wrote:
as avenj pointed out, current 'mission statement' of devrel says that they
handle the issue of actually revoking a dev's access
I thought this was written somewhere too, but I can't seem to find it
anywhere. Do you know where it says this?
It certainly says they're resp
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not
> > automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to
> > supply evidence why this should stay between QA and infra.
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:31 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > at any rate, you're proposing giving the control to the QA team which has
> > no guidelines or processes outlined, let alone the manpower. devrel has
> > all of these.
>
> And devrel is the wrong group to han
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not
> automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to
> supply evidence why this should stay between QA and infra.
>
>> at any rate, you're proposing giving the control to the QA team
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 05:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
QA can work faster since it's less objected do and doesn't need endless
committees and documentation -- the documentation is the broken code.
That's not true. The documentation is the developer guide, the ebuil
Mike Frysinger wrote:
so your previous off-topic comment about redtape in devrel processes was
irrelevant :P
Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not
automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to
supply evidence why this should stay betwee
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 05:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> QA can work faster since it's less objected do and doesn't need endless
> committees and documentation -- the documentation is the broken code.
That's not true. The documentation is the developer guide, the ebuild faq,
pertinent GLE
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:22 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> > The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
>
> No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
> like devrel claim it shouldn't be
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 06:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > QA team identifies a misbehaving dev who refuses to change and then hands
> > off the name/relevant data to devrel ... QA team then is pretty much done
> > with the issue and the rest is up to devrel to resolv
Mike Frysinger wrote:
QA team identifies a misbehaving dev who refuses to change and then hands off
the name/relevant data to devrel ... QA team then is pretty much done with
the issue and the rest is up to devrel to resolve
I disagree that devrel should be involved. I think QA should hand off
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:02:45PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in
> > > the previous discussions on the devrel list
> > >
> > > bes
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in
> > the previous discussions on the devrel list
> >
> > besides, is this a bad thing ? i'd prefer to have devs settle crap
> > themsel
Mike Frysinger wrote:
this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in the
previous discussions on the devrel list
besides, is this a bad thing ? i'd prefer to have devs settle crap themselves
than ever contacting devrel :P
It's very relevant, because it supports th
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 02:04 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > - in the case of developers who do not wish to follow accepted
> > policies/guidelines/etc even after being enlightened, devrel is notified
> > and takes appropriate corrective action
>
> - in the case of a ne
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:50:50 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > * Keywords field changes
|
| Wouldn't you *want* to see these?
Mmm, I suppose maybe someone might try to sneak a REVIEWED add past us.
I've switched the o
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> * Keywords field changes
Wouldn't you *want* to see these?
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 19:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Okay, I've gone through and added in approximate categories to the
> subjects where possible. A few I'm really not sure about, if anyone
> wants to tinker feel free.
Excellent!
This is definitely appreciated. Thanks.
--
Chris Gianello
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 19:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:52:33 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Uhm, if the ebuild submitter does not choose a category, then we'd
> | > have to change the subject ourselves (and sometimes I'm not even
> | > remotely
13.9.2005, 21:08:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:57:24 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Sure, I've already managed to delete all the bugspam this caused...
> | *g*
> Yeah, maintainer-wanted bug emails are a pain in the ass. How about we
> turn off email sending
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:57:24 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Sure, I've already managed to delete all the bugspam this caused...
| *g*
Yeah, maintainer-wanted bug emails are a pain in the ass. How about we
turn off email sending for:
* I'm added to or removed from this capacity
* Pri
13.9.2005, 20:31:30, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:52:33 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >> Uhm, if the ebuild submitter does not choose a category, then we'd
| >> have to change the subject ourselves (and sometimes I'm not even
| >> remotely sure into whic
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 07:39:10 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I know that this is automatically generated, but can we either change
| the bug subjects or figure out some way to add proposed categories to
| these? I think changing the summary should suffice. For the ones
| with
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:52:33 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Uhm, if the ebuild submitter does not choose a category, then we'd
| > have to change the subject ourselves (and sometimes I'm not even
| > remotely sure into which category would the particular ebuild fit).
|
| Try
Mike Frysinger wrote:
- in the case of developers who do not wish to follow accepted
policies/guidelines/etc even after being enlightened, devrel is notified and
takes appropriate corrective action
- in the case of a need to take appropriate corrective action, devrel
gets tied up in investiga
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 01:50 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT]
> >
> > > I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one
> > > devrel dev stating that wh
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 01:09 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:22:32 -0400 Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> | > The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
> |
> | No it hasn't, un
Lance Albertson wrote:
Ah, I see. To the best of my knowledge that just needs to be worked out
w/ the GLEP 15 people and infra. I dropped into -infra and they said
that there's space for it, but that bug # 98282 lists a couple of
contentious points. (Also, the gentooexperimental scripts "abou
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT]
> > I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one
> > devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical
> > policies (not using repoma
Paweł Madej schrieb:
> Zend Studio
> Zend Studio Server
> Zend Optimizer
The PHP Herd has the Zend products on their TODO [1].
--
[1] http://svn.gnqs.org/projects/gentoo-php-overlay/wiki/TodoList
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:22:32 -0400 Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
| >
| > The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
|
| No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
| like devre
Hello,
I'm PHP developer using commercial Zend Studio installed out of portage
and I try to investigate if it is possible to get it to portage tree
(i'll try to do an ebuild)
but my question if there is a need for that applications?
I mean
Zend Studio
Zend Studio Server
Zend Optimizer
More
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT]
> I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one
> devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical
> policies (not using repoman, repeatedly breaking sections of the tree,
> etcetera) that enforcemen
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:22:32AM CDT]
> >
> > The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
>
> No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
> like devrel claim it shouldn't be able to do anything because drobbins
> set it up'
>
> Recruitm
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
>
>>The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
>
>
> No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
> like devrel claim it shouldn't be able to do anything because drob
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
>
> The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
like devrel claim it shouldn't be able to do anything because drobbins
set it up'
Recruitment,
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:39:31 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Each has a role, don't blur the AT definition into ebuild devs unless
| you've after eliminating AT positions (something I doubt going by
| your previous QA threads); if you're after that, state so please.
Not at all. I
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:21:22 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is
| > down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch
| > testers have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at
| > least in
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:08 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 13.9.2005, 13:39:10, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
>
> > I know that this is automatically generated, but can we either change
> > the bug subjects or figure out some way to add proposed categories to
> > these? I think changing the summary shoul
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 15:14 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> >
> >>are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try
> >>turning off vesafb-tng
> >
> >
> > Why ?
> >
>
> Actually, this shouldn't matter, as this onl
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 17:01 +0300, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try
> > turning off vesafb-tng
>
> Why ?
Because of known bugs I'd guess?
--
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move
si
Ivan Yosifov wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try
turning off vesafb-tng
Why ?
Actually, this shouldn't matter, as this only occurs with 64gb highmem. I only
mentioned it as this is the only "random crasher" Gen
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try
> turning off vesafb-tng
Why ?
--
Cheers,
Ivan Yosifov.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Frank Schafer wrote:
Does someone know if it's worth a try with the vanilla and if vanilla
here means a really vanilla from kernel.org or if it's sufficient to get
the (too patched and thus not so vanilla) vanilla-sources.
vanilla-sources is not patched.
Please be kind with me regarding to th
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:08:41AM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> No, you're confusing the different definitions of developers. In the
> gentoo sense of everyone is a developer(ebuild, infra, devrel, even
> forums), then yes, you would have to consider the AT as a "developer."
Uuuuh, watch your languag
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:24:38PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this bug is from 2005-02-05. It was reported again (in this thread)
> 2005-02-10. I hit the same behavior 2005-09-08.
>
> internal compiler error: segmentation fault during emerge Xorg
>
> The bug is simply reproducible
Hello,
this bug is from 2005-02-05. It was reported again (in this thread)
2005-02-10. I hit the same behavior 2005-09-08.
internal compiler error: segmentation fault during emerge Xorg
The bug is simply reproducible (emerge Xorg) at the same line of code.
The bug is still marked as NEW. Donnie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato wrote:
| Simon Stelling wrote:
|
|> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|>
|>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>> wrote:
|>> | define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
|>>
|>> Repeated good con
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>
right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really
anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get
it done ;)
>>
>>They *could* do some 'creative re-org
13.9.2005, 13:39:10, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I know that this is automatically generated, but can we either change
> the bug subjects or figure out some way to add proposed categories to
> these? I think changing the summary should suffice. For the ones with
> categories, I can pretty much f
Simon Stelling wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
Repeated good contributions.
Just to clarify: We're not going around giving everybody AT-status who
just a
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 01:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> This list is automagically generated. It will be sent to the gentoo-dev
> mailing list at irregular intervals until someone asks me to stop.
I know that this is automatically generated, but can we either change
the bug subjects or figure
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
Repeated good contributions.
Just to clarify: We're not going around giving everybody AT-status who just
asked for it. Normally, we
Homer Parker wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| voting previleges
Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of
complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who
know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven them
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| voting previleges
Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of
complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who
know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves.
Does that mean that all the Gentoo people who d
Yuan MEI wrote:
> Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Yuan MEI wrote:
>>
>>>I noticed that cjk-latex-4.6(http://cjk.ffii.org/) has been out for a
>>>long, but no ebuild is in the portage. So, who'd like to handle this?
>>
>>Usually you will want to check bugs.gentoo.org before querying
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>>>right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really
>>>anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get
>>>it done ;)
>
> They *could* do some 'creative re-org' a.k.a. remove some folks from
>
69 matches
Mail list logo
