-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
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
| > devmanual's a slightly better bet if one wishes to learn how things
| > should really be
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
> Its a chicken and egg situation. I need to have a certain level of
> expertise with ebuild syntax and conventions to do the job. So I've
> asked for some help from an expert. Also, I learn things quicker and
> easier by first seeing examples and then seeing the document
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 16:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> ...some of which are good and some of which are terrible.
True.
> That's, uh, not really the best documentation around... The devmanual's
> a slightly better bet if one wishes to learn how things should really be
> done.
Have you submit
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:20:00 +0200 Henrik Brix Andersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| We have plenty of examples in portage
...some of which are good and some of which are terrible.
| Did you read our Ebuild HOWTO [1] yet?
That's, uh, not really the best documentation around... The devmanual's
a
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 11:14 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Its a chicken and egg situation. I need to have a certain level of
> expertise with ebuild syntax and conventions to do the job. So I've
> asked for some help from an expert. Also, I learn things quicker and
> easier by first seeing exampl
-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 from it.
>
> That's still not *
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 from it.
That's still not *you* doing the actual work - that's you requesting
someone else to review your work
-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
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 09:22 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> And yet I see scarce few ideas on how to solve the problem. The only
> other person who seems to have any are Ciaran, and what is his solution?
> He's doing *code reviews* of ebuilds. *GASP* Imagine that!
And - as I told you the last time
-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
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 stopping you, or me, or an
average joe, or George W. Bush, from "peer reviewing"
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those
folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are
allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when
some bug is found. If you believe Chris Gianelloni's argument,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
| What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those
| folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are
| allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when
| some bug i
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 19:42 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
[snip]
> What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those
> folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are
> allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when
> some bug is foun
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:44:56PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -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
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
[lenghty email snipped]
Since a ml isn't a place for interactive discussion, could you please
user our irc channel or jabber im?
Thank you
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@ge
-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 impair our productivity more t
-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
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> As R Hill already pointed out, WONTFIX means that the *bug* will never
> be fixed. Fixing the *ebuild* would fix the bug, so WONTFIX isn't the
> right keyword. Following your logic, all bugs dealing with ebuild should
> be marked WONTFIX; in the ebuild's current state the
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:23:23 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| As R Hill already pointed out, WONTFIX means that the *bug* will never
| be fixed. Fixing the *ebuild* would fix the bug, so WONTFIX isn't the
| right keyword. Following your logic, all bugs dealing with ebuild
| shou
-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 WONTFIX is
> fine.
>
As R Hill alread
Nathan L. Adams posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:31:30 -0400:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> | > No, I'm saying that having a 'team lead' throw some ar
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 WONTFIX is
fine.
Cheers,
Ferdy
--
\\|// . . . o o o o O O ( Born to be )
o o
-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
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Yeah, the lack of reopening powers is a problem. I'd rather this was
solved by a) letting any authenticated user reopen any bug and, if
necessary, b) allowing developers to lock bugs.
Agreed. I've requested this before but haven't had any response.
--de.
--
gentoo-de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:06:34 -0600 R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
| | 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 ebu
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:06:34 -0600 R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 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
| >
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 to reopen with a fixed ebuild is used when problems
On Friday 19 August 2005 11:59 am, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > What I'd like is a new keyword (bugzilla, not ebuild) for indicating
> > that a developer has done a check on an ebuild and is satisfied that
> > the ebuild is fine from a style perspective.
>
> Isn't the us
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
What I'd like is a new keyword (bugzilla, not ebuild) for indicating
that a developer has done a check on an ebuild and is satisfied that
the ebuild is fine from a style perspective.
Isn't the use of flags like Mozilla does[1], what you want?
[1] https://bugzilla.mozill
MADE_IT_THROUGH_HELL(nick) possibly?
On 8/18/05, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Can anyone suggest
> > a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)...
> >
>
> I like the idea.
>
> SYNTAX_CHECKED(nick) maybe?
>
> lu
>
> --
>
> Luca Barba
33 matches
Mail list logo
