On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 11:31:30AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
> I really am curious here:
>
> a) What are the team leads spending most of their time on?
Hopefully not reading this thread
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
* Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:55:32 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> | Hash: SHA1
> |
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | | Nope, because I'm not marking things as "I will include this".
> |
> | Accordin
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 01:13:37PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> 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? Any
-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
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:56 PM, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
-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. Natha
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:31:30 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Not at all. I'm saying that a) most 'team leads' will not do proper
| > checks because they don't have time to and b) the limited time that
| > 'team leads' have is better spent elsewhere.
|
| I really am curious h
-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"
> | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > wrote:
> | > | > Because th
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"
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | > Because that won't help in the slightest.
| > |
| > | So you're saying that peer review is go
-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 our time with a pointless
-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, but peer reviewing things
> | by default is b
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 our time with a pointless e-mail
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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, but peer reviewing things
| by default is bad? Explain?
No, I'm saying that having a 'team lead' throw some arbitrary stamp
-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 bound to increase. So why not focus on ho
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:55:32 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| Hash: SHA1
|
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | Nope, because I'm not marking things as "I will include this".
|
| According to Bugzilla, it means more like: Contains content that
| shou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Nope, because I'm not marking things as "I will include this".
According to Bugzilla, it means more like: Contains content that should
be reviewed for integration. Patches, apps/scripts, etc...
which could be used as content
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 06:20:14PM +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> For anyone willing to modify it, I've taken it out of bugzilla cvs and
> put it in my dev space:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~griffon26/bzLifecycle.xml
>
> Just load it in dia and edit away.
Oh, btw, this is licensed under the
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:58:00AM +0200, Julien Allanos wrote:
> Furthermore, could the bugzilla bug lifecycle
> (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.18/html/lifecycle.html) be referenced
> in the bugzilla-howto, or even better, updated with Gentoo workflow
> characteristics and included?
For anyone w
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:20:38 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 15:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:39:26 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams"
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > | http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94764
| >
| > Will do. There's ra
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 15:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:39:26 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[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 ebuil
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:39:26 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[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
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 bound to increase. So why not focus on how
| to increase quality by default?
I am doing. I'm doing it by trying to imp
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:13:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | Ok. You have until whenever I next encounter Jeff to come up with a
| | better name, or REVIEWED it is. And it seems I was dreaming about
| | bugzilla allowing () stuff after keywords entries
-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
Quoting Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Currently, things assigned to maintainer-wanted get the following
keywords (bugzilla, not ebuild):
* EBUILD if an ebuild is attached
* REQUEST if an ebuild is requested
Ah. I didn't know this was part of the bugzilla policy.
I've been going throu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Ok. You have until whenever I next encounter Jeff to come up with a
| better name, or REVIEWED it is. And it seems I was dreaming about
| bugzilla allowing () stuff after keywords entries (maybe I was thinking
| of one of the
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:22:30 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 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
-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
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:05:43PM +0200, Grobian wrote:
>
>
> Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the
> >>bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead.
> >
> >
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the
bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead.
Whoah! Isn't REVIEWED the perfect keyword?
or APPROVED?
--
Fabian Groffe
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the
> bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead.
Whoah! Isn't REVIEWED the perfect keyword?
--
Maurice van der Pot
Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROT
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:24:53 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:14:36 +0200 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
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:14:36 +0200 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?
Seemant suggested VERIFIED(nick). I'm going with
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 Barbato
Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.
Currently, things assigned to maintainer-wanted get the following
keywords (bugzilla, not ebuild):
* EBUILD if an ebuild is attached
* REQUEST if an ebuild is requested
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 c
36 matches
Mail list logo
