On 06/15/2016 12:37 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> You've got most things right, Rich. But a couple of comments follow.
>
> On 15/06/16 02:25, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> 1. Developers wouldn't have access to all the ebuilds in the
>> curated repositories. They would only have access to the ones the
On 06/15/2016 12:22 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 14/06/16 08:48, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> What sort of modularization are you talking about?
> The cheap answer is "as much as possible.
>
>> Would we suggest something like GNOME, KDE, XFCE, Mate, Cinnamon,
>> et al getting their own overlays
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:24, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding
> one requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as
> curated?
>
> Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the maintain
On 06/16/2016 12:35 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 16/06/16 09:24, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding
>> one requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as
>> curated?
>
>> Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:34, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> There is overhead in choosing which repositories you want to
> include in your 'upstream'. Even with an automated tool like
> layman, there's maintenance overhead. We'd need another tool to
> assist in disc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue
> hacking and/or breaking things, or whatever else, without worrying
> about their "official" branch. We could have a standard that
> assumes
15.06.2016 22:11, Michał Górny пишет:
Hello, everyone.
On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development'
component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd
rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split
currently used there.
Right now w
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Right now we have the following components:
>
> - Applications,
> - baselayout,
> - Core system,
> - Development,
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - Games,
> - GCC Porting,
> - GNOME,
> - Hardened,
> - Java,
> - KDE,
> - Keywording & Stabiliza
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>>
On 15/06/16 07:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:15:03 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:12:40 +0200
>> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>>
>>> Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 02:32:41 schrieb Peter Stuge:
>>>
I would personally be super happy to have my overlay ho
Hello, everyone.
Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
replace the two with a single NEW state.
Rationale:
1. Most of developers don't care ab
On 16/06/16 13:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>> - GNOME,
>> - H
On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>
> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
> replace the two with a si
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> >
> > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> > However, we use the two
On 16-06-2016 14:51:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> > >
> > > Right now we have separate UNC
On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote:
> We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-).
+1. I was going to suggest the same.
--
Kent
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
On 17 June 2016 at 00:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> Revision two:
>
> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].
"Overlays" seems a l
Hello, everyone.
Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC.
This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for
them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED.
RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when they close
a bug. It's also the only state that could be directly transferred from
oth
On 06/16/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
>
> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It would
> -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already RESOLVED,
> and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it into stable.
>
> While
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC.
>
> This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for
> them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED.
>
> RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when they close
> a bug.
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Right now we have the following components:
> >
> > - Applications,
> > - baselayout,
> > - Core system,
> > - Development,
> > - Eclasses and Profiles,
> > - Games,
> > - GCC
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It
> > would -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already
> > RESOLVED, and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it
> > into stable.
> >
>
On 06/16/2016 03:19 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> I currently set InVCS for pending-stable fixes in conjunction with the
> IN_PROGRESS state. I would like to keep InVCS at least.
Exactly
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 510
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>
> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
> replace the two with
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:02:13 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC.
>
> This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for
> them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED.
>
> RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when they close
> a
On 06/16/2016 02:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote:
>> We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-).
>
>
> +1. I was going to suggest the same.
>
Bug is still open even if it is IN_PROGRESS or not in stable. But I
currently make use of the UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:18:20 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > Right now we have the following components:
> > >
> > > - Applications,
> > > - baselayout,
> > > - Cor
On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>> - GNOME,
>>
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> >
> > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> > However, we use t
On 06/16/2016 09:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>>
>> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
>> However, we use the two scarcely. I belie
On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>>
>> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
>> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe
On 16/06/16 14:19, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
>>> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It
>>> would -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already
>>> RESOLVED, and it could be used to signify th
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:47:12 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >> Right now we have the following components:
> >>
> >> - Applications,
> >> - baselayout,
> >> - Core system,
> >> - Develo
On 17 June 2016 at 01:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> because
> sometimes, issues can get reported that are really obscure and, for example,
> tied to a particular hardware configuration, thus cannot be easily and
> independently confirmed
Isn't that why "RESOLVED: Need Info" exists?
Or is "CONFIRME
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> It'd be nice if, when replying in a comment, a flag
> could be made available to automatically to state that "I've encountered this
> issue, too", and once 2, 3, or 4 of those are logged, Bugzilla automatically
> changes the state to CONFIRME
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> > >
> > > Right now we have
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:32:03PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:18:20 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > > Right now we have the foll
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:27:07 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> > Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Hello, everyone.
> > > >
> > > > H
On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user
>> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it.
>
> Are you saying that bugs that haven't been marked
On 17 June 2016 at 01:02, Michał Górny wrote:
> VERIFIED is used scarcely, and not really consistently. It can only be
> used on RESOLVED bugs, and sometimes users use it to confirm that
> the bug is resolved.
Its also worth pointing out VERIFIED status annoyingly restricts a
package, and so any
On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue
hacking and/or breaking things, or whatever else, without worrying
about their "official" br
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
>> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user
>>> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to k
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500
james wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> >> I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue
> >> hacking and/or b
On 06/16/2016 10:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500
james wrote:
On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
I guess what I mean is these outside developers could conti
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:40:53 -0500
james wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 10:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500
> > james wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>> Hash: SHA512
> >>>
> >>> On 16/06/16
On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
>
> Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't
> handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others and i
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:37:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
>
> Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't
> handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others
# Michael Palimaka (16 Jun 2016)
# No longer does anything. Masked for removal in 30 days.
# Bug 585786.
kde-misc/akonadi-facebook
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
> >
> > Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people wh
On 15/06/16 21:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> I would personally go for the following layout:
>
> - All packages,
> - Core system [includes baselayout],
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - GCC Porting,
> - Hardened,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - SELinux.
S
On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > > > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
> > >
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >
> > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-m
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał G
>
> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It would
> -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already RESOLVED,
> and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it into stable.
>
Right now I dont think we agree what "RESOLVED" means.
* Some people close
>
> To be honest, I don't really see the need for VERIFIED state. Since
> it's used scarcely, it can't be really relied upon. Some users use it
> completely incorrectly (e.g. when the bug should be reopened instead).
>
Indeed. Kill VERIFIED with fire.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux devel
On 06/16/2016 11:57 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> How about introducing a state that explicitly means "resolved but needs
> stabilization"?
We already have InVCS keyword for this
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5
> > > Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
> > > of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
> > > confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
> > > non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having the
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:23:06 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >
> > > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > > >
58 matches
Mail list logo