Le 09/11/2009 17:30, Patrick Lauer a écrit :
Ok, here's the real problem;
"Unmaintained stuff is unmaintained"
Patrick,
Just piping in to say that dropping a package from portage isn't the end
of the world, we have a very good process for it and it has proven to be
very effective.
Dead pa
On Monday 09 November 2009 18:45:46 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 09 November 2009 17:52:23 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > On Monday 09 November 2009 21:16:28 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > And talking about glibc ...
> >
> > For 2.11 you didn't even test if all patches apply (bug #292139)
>
> this examp
Richard Freeman said:
[good stuff]
i share this sentiment. lets stay an open community and encourage
learning.
if somebody improves a package then that is a good thing. even if it could
be improved even more.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Monday 09 November 2009 17:52:23 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Monday 09 November 2009 21:16:28 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > oh muffin ! get over it already. either do it right or stop doing it.
>
> perl?
you [thankfully] arent handling perl, so i dont see how that package is
relevant.
> > > You
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> hmm, let's see, one package that was already broken under other C libraries
> broke under glibc-2.11. and it's already been fixed. of course, if you'd
> simply used bugzilla's search function, you wouldnt have to rhetorically
> wonder aloud.
> -mike
and I was all excit
On Monday 09 November 2009 21:16:28 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> oh muffin ! get over it already. either do it right or stop doing it.
perl?
That's how you want to handle things? Great.
I think we can agree that that strategy doesn't work.
> > You should understand one thing: I don't care at all
On Monday 09 November 2009 17:30:27 Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> "Unmaintained stuff is unmaintained"
>
If i can recall my recruitment process, i remember one sentence which was like
"if you touch any package, you are responsible for it".
Please don't hide behind your great job that you are doing
I believe QA is important from the perspective that you want to assure that
the ebuilds work. Nothing makes a casual user more annoyed that having an
emerge for his machine fail to work. But if you are running the emerges
unconstrained (e.g. you specify them in the keywords file) then you are
"ex
On Monday 09 November 2009 11:30:27 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> And instead of being happy that people like ssuominen just fix things where
> other people don't (be it because these other people have no interest, only
> care about a few packages or have become distracted with life) some people
> get re
On Monday 09 November 2009 13:08:52 Peter Volkov wrote:
[Snip]
> Well, it looks like the root of this problem is the following statement:
> "QA is less important then new packages in the tree". I failed to hear
> any arguments why QA is unimportant so I still believe that QA problem
> is a problem.
Peter Volkov wrote:
1. Our good non-formal policy "if developer touched anything he becames
responsible for that ebuild and should fix issues noticed" is sometimes
ignored. We see people reacting: you've noticed - you fix. I think such
attitude is unacceptable.
Keep in mind the downside to such
If you have concerns, try a friendly approach and ask Patrick to fix them.
I'm quite convinced he would be happy to do so. Your offensive approach
achieves the opposite. That isn't in the interest of QA either.
Cheers,
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
___
В Пнд, 09/11/2009 в 01:37 +0100, Vlastimil Babka пишет:
> I totally agree. And I must say it started with the very first mail of
> pva. Accusing of not knowing quizzes was totally uncalled for.
If you know how to do thing properly what are the reasons avoid doing
that? All I heard here is lazines
13 matches
Mail list logo
