-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lance Albertson wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>
>>>>It is listed in the MOTD on the installation media. I'm not making any
>>>>assumptions on this. It's really not our fault when the user base
>&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grobian wrote:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
>> IMHO a text based file has a big advantage in this proposed application
>> over fileformats which use XML: Any administrator can read it with his
>> editor of choice, right from the console.
>
>
> This is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> Yeah, see, this is a case where not understanding the structure of
> Gentoo gives you the wrong impression. The GDP's policy applies to the
> GDP. That is not a global developer policy of any kind. It is a policy
> by a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 10:58 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>I've done several Gentoo installs and never knew the plain text versions
>>existed. I think you might want to check the assumption that jus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Xavier Neys wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Oh god help. This also points to another reason why this is not such
>>> a good idea. Writing guideXML is a lot more work than writing an
>>> e-mail format file (ciaran's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:36 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? (Don't
>>lie). And you expect that the average user installs a Gentoo se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:24 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>*ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have
>>a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2005 14:38, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>>
>>>What is worse is that some
>>>users might not update for a prolongued time (6 months). At that time
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>
>>Oh god help. This also points to another reason why this is not such a
>>good idea. Writing guideXML is a lot more work than writing an e-mail
>>format file (ciaran's proposed format for those who did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> What is worse is that some
> users might not update for a prolongued time (6 months). At that time
> they will not find the information in the erata list anymore. But they
> will get the RELEVANT news delivered by emerge/enew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Meltzer wrote:
> erm, and how exactly do you propose that the user who
> doesn't-read-the-site-because-it-has-no-useful-information-currently
> will learn about errata.g.o?
If all of the other replicated sources (forums, mailing lists, GWN, etc)
a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote: [Thu Nov 03 2005, 07:02:58PM CST]
>
>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>>Read the list of requirements in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lance Albertson wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>
>>*ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have
>>a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never
>>get Gentoo instal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:36:03 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation?
>
> Actually, yes, I did. I can quite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
>> So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? (Don't
>> lie). And you expect that the average user installs a Gentoo server
>> without at least referencing the documentation? Pa-leaze.
>
>
> Funny, I'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> *ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have
>> a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never
>> get Gentoo installed in the first place. The "lightweight" requirement
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> Not necessarily the website imo, some central store where it's pushed
> out to all of the locations though (which I suspect you're getting
> at).
I forgot to clarify one point. I'm saying that http://errata.g.o/ should
be the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:24:27PM -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>I'm also commenting on the part that *wrongly* states "It is not
>>reasonable to expect all users to have an MTA, *web browser*,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:24:27 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I'm also commenting on the part that *wrongly* states "It is not
> | reasonable to expect all user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:05:45 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:45:08 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams"
> | > <
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:02:58 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | So if you didn't want people to actually review and comment on *your*
> | GLEP, why did you write:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 14:51 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
>>Did you specifically ask them if it is because we have different news in
>>different locations? Somehow I think you're obscuring some facts to
>>make your own argu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:45:08 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Just keep in mind that portage is supposed to be non-interactive and
> | most users like it that way. (Although
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:29:45 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Flat files can be great in certain situations. Flat files do indeed
> | make the parsing trivial. However SIMPL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:26 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:16:03 +0100 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>| For them to know about it, they need to be warned when they do their
>>| "emerge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:32:47 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | What do you mean "they aren't tied to ebuilds"? I don't really
> | understand what this feature should do then, it seems. Once again,
> | what's wrong w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:49:42 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | 6. Ciaran is completely biased against XML (or anything that isn't
> | stored as a simple flat file)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> [a reply]
1. Store the actual guides as GuideXML at a central place such as
http://errata.gentoo.org/
2. Write a simple 'publishing' tool that extracts a summary and a link.
This is what gets pumped into portage and shown dur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 17:22:29 +0100 Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | What's wrong with XML format similar to the one that is used for our
> | GLSAs?
>
> 1. Portage does not handle XML. Portage will not handle XML in th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
> Stuart Herbert posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> excerpted below, on Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:05:33 +:
>
>>The original problem is that GWN, forums, planet.g.o, gentoo-dev - even
>>together, we've seen that they just don't reach enough of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:11 +0900, pclouds wrote:
>
>>Just curious how other distros deliver important news to their users?
>
>
> Red Hat has you subscribe to RHN, which sends you errata based on your
> installed configurat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 01:42 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
>>There is *only one time* we can guarantee that we'll have a user's
>>attention. That's right after the message that tells a user how many
>>CONFIG_PROTECT files th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I don't trust automatic correction, false positives can always happen,
> currently my way to proceed with such problems is opening a big bug and
> poking maintainers to fix them :)
>
The esyntaxer tool will warn an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kito wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On behalf of the g/fbsd and macos teams, I'd like to call a meeting
> for all members of the gentoo-alt projects (and anyone else who would
> like to attend) on Monday September 26 at 19:00 UTC.
>
> Items on the Agend
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Sounds to me more like people who aren't familiar with the internal
> structure of Gentoo don't need to be the peanut gallery when it comes to
> internal structural issues, but that's just me 8)
It sounds to me like those 'more familiar with the internal structure
Gentoo' ha
-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
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
>> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
>> access.
>
>
> My point exactly! Why have another category?
Because their rol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And as for taking it as a PISSOFF... We've had exactly one person do
> that so far. All the rest of the feedback we receive -- which is a heck
> of a lot -- is of the "thanks for the pointers, please could someone
> check this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Kursawe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am going to add a local USE flag "gimp" to xsane which triggers building
> of xsane as a plugin for the GIMP.
>
> Bye,
>
> Patrick
Or how about an xsane flag for GIMP that makes the xsane plugin a
dependency.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>>On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote:
>>
>>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>
If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
pac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Martin wrote:
> I'm not sure I like this. I think it would be too slow. I'd rather have
> a concept of maintainer arch (the reason I still like the old keyword
> ordering, because there was at least *some* idea of maintainer arch. In
> fact, I used
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Well, it strikes me that most if not all of the organisational questions
> are not relevant to a tester; the only technical question that is
> relevant is 9 (keyword marking), and even that would be reworded for the
> tester per
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> | What are the most common ebuild mistakes?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=3
Thanks everyone. I'll bug each of you individually if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato wrote:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual/
Thanks, I've been wondering where Ciaran's docs went. :)
Now, there one question that I won't be able to answer for myself
anytime soon:
What are the most common ebuild mistakes?
A s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:37:52 +0200 Henrik Brix Andersen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 16:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > That's, uh, not really the best documentation around... The
> | > devmanua
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 10:10 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>I'm starting to do just that. I've even asked Ciaran to review a
>>particular ebuild I was interested in so that I could learn fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> And - as I told you the last time you brought this issue up - you're
> more than welcome to start reviewing ebuilds and commits as well.
I'm starting to do just that. I've even asked Ciaran to review a
particular ebuild I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Meltzer wrote:
> This time I'll say something useful :)
>
> Nathan, you seem to be misunderstanding open source. You get the "I
> can ask for features or suggest things" part, but not that "I can add
> features or do things part". No one is stop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news
Somehow, I doubt that... ;)
> but that's because you don't realize
> how many devs are sitting back and giggling at this thread 8)
I didn't realize you got together with other devs for giggle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Given every dev is complaining about how long is getting this thread and
> how pointless is.
>
> PLEASE AVOID REFRAINING SUCH NONSENSE
>
> point taken, working on it, don't im
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
> Not to sound harsh, but...
[snip the "we're just volanteers" argument]
All F/OSS projects (even Linux with its numerous corporate sponsors)
are, at their core, volanteer projects. Yet the good ones still manage
to build peer review in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:00:02PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>WONTFIX refers to the bug, not the attached ebuild.
>
> And it won't be 'fixed' unless the ebuild is improved, so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | | WONTFIX doesn't seem the right tool for the job:
> | |
> | |WONTFIX
> | | The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed.
> |
> | And the ebuild attached will never be 'fixed' in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Reviewing an ebuild has nothing to do with inclusion. For inclusion in
> the tree, it also needs to be tested.
You don't take the slightest look at an ebuild (the code) before
including it? Anyhow, whether its testing or co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams"
> | > <
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 19 August 2005 08:56 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>In the time it took you to respond to this thread, you probably could
>>have reviewed the ebuild in question...
>
> thank you for wasting o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > Because that won't help in the slightest.
> |
> | So you're saying that peer review is good,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> *sigh*
>
> Please stay away from that bug. It is assigned to the games team, as it
> is a games bug, and it will be gotten to when we have the time and not
> before. Nathan is once again using a discussion to fuel his own
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:36:43 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs
> | with commit access is just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing lists of
> things that need to be fixed before the ebuild can be considered for
> inclusion. The WONTFIX resolution along with a comment asking for the
> submitter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Oh come on, haven't you heard my rants about the state of the tree and
> the number of monkeys who have commit access?
Yes I've read those rants, among others.. :)
But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' the
> ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to work'.
> REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho.
>
I like REVIEWED; it seems to reflec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> That being said, thanks to IU for doing the webcast... now everybody
> gets to see what we look like... *grin*
If you're like me, you have a perfect face... for email. :P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian D. Harring wrote:
> Vapier had suggested yanking (on unmerge, not replacement) any
> config_protected file that has the same md5/mtime as what it was
> originally merged with.
As and end-user, that would be mana from heaven. :)
Nathan
-B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The will not allow it and I will not allow someone to go fooling in
> an ebuild I maintain. Not trying to be an ass here but we have
> something called respect for others when it comes to the tree and
> what they maintain.
Poor Jory. Respect isn'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> These packages infuriate me, and quite frankly, I have no need for them
> for release building. Basically, I don't want to maintain them any
> more. I plan on adding a "libkudzu" ebuild, which will fulfill the
> dependency f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> If the developer shortage was not as big as it is, we could probably
> really do something with your proposition.
Then why not lay the ground work, documentation-wise, now? Then as you
add on developers they have a nice re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
> Ah, okay. You're talking about patch review. Now this makes sense.
> I've always considered the Verified status to be indicative that a third
> party has been able to reproduce the bug, not that a fix has been
> "approved". My mistak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:32:44 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > Again, Gentoo is not a large corporation or Debian.
> |
> | I don't see how Gentoo's status (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that:
> |
> | "Ideally any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris White wrote:
> Doc is still here:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml
>
> After a good ammount of user input the bugzilla doc has been updated. The
> new version uses ggdb3 instead of g for debugging and contains a new section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Drake wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical
>>products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs?
>
> You're now significantly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be
>>verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done.
>&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>> But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
>> party before marking it done.
>
>
> That's reasonable, but I don't see that party being a T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
> a) what would be the point of the reporter also being the verifier as
> far as confirming that the bug is real and not a PEBKAC error?
Sometimes devs do clever things to their systems that end-users aren't
aware of, or they test the fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> Dear Nathan,
>
> On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:04 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
>>party before marking it done.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> Nathan you have this misconception that just cause a bug apears on
> one system it is gonna apear on multiple systems.
What are you talking about? This whole discussion was framed with the
situation where the *developer* det
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> I didn't say that.
>
> I'm saying that (a) team leads do not want to waste their time in such a
> way just to give you warm fuzzies (b) devs do not particularly want
> their team lead reviewing every single action they take, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco Matthies wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to
>>*improve* QA.
>
>
> Some thoughts from a humble user:
>
> Any improvement must neithe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Clearly, you either chose to blatantly ignore, or completely
> misunderstood what avenj was saying. What he *meant* was we don't have
> the time or manpower to have developers take significant portions of
> their valuable ti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for
> | a living.
>
> Gentoo's &
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for
> | a living.
>
> Gentoo's &
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregorio Guidi wrote:
>
> Any proposal that implies an enourmous increase of our human resources is
> really useless for us.
> Please accept the fact that we cannot change our resources at will, and adapt
> any suggestion to this simple principle.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
> So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads
> to waste fairly significant quantities of time staring over everybody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> I have sat here and read you all rant on and on about these
> issues,
Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to
*improve* QA.
> but you still are not taking into account that when a bug is
> ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> Problem is many of us have sometimes already too many bugs to care about
> users reporting something, and then never coming back, not even talking
> about keeping to poke the reporter to come back and say the fix works
> fine,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the dev
>>>implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug before
>>>actually doing something about it/. And I don't mean to pick on Jeffrey;
>>>t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
>
> Well, not blocker , but ...
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73181
>
This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the
dev implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug
before actually d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
>>
>>>We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT,
>>
>>seems like the name is m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote:
>
>
>>I think most of the assumptions that you're making involve giving your
>>user population root access.
>>Don't
>
>
> ??
> The assumptions I am making are clearly not involving giving a user
> p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aron Griffis wrote:
> In my humble opinion, Gentoo is missing too many points to be an
> enterprise Linux. We commit to a live tree. We don't have true QA,
> testing or tinderbox. We don't have paid staff, alpha/beta/rc cycles.
> We don't really hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically
> organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing stuff. Do you
> group by what the package is used for (email vs. game vs. web browser)
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ned Ludd wrote:
> *poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets
> move
> all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or
> six later comes along sys-ldap and it gets moved there. The logic will
> go full
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
foser wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
>
>>I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
>>within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
>>To give an example: mzscheme was place
96 matches
Mail list logo
