Several core ROX programs are out of date.
Rox bug # 102228
Rox-lib bug # 79333
Rox-clib bug # 78309
Despite the above bug reports, and copies to the current listed
maintainers, the products are not being updated.
Rox is among the easiest programs to maintain, and many ebuilds simply
need to be
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:58:30AM -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> In addition, I and others have contributed ebuilds for consideration,
> and they continue to languish or are assigned to the maintainer-wanted
> alias. I have offered to produce ebuilds for review and submission. I
> was told I needed t
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:50 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> If bugs are not handled in a timely manner, it is because we're
> shorthanded. This is also the reason new ebuilds are often assigned to
> maintainer-wanted. We'd rather not add packages to portage if there is
> no developer to pick u
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 12:42:11PM -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> Certainly, I am others have fulfilled this. I have emailed the two
> maintainers offering to assist. No response.
I can't speak for them. If they're non-responsive and you want to become
a developer, contact the recruiters.
> For some
Peter Hyman wrote:
>Firstly; to be asked to become a developer you should either apply to an
>opening, or just help out whether in the form of user support or filing
>bug reports - we notice frequent contributors making contributions to
>Gentoo and we attempt to reward them by giving them the chan
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 00:02 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
snip...
> Indeed, your name is everywhere when it comes down to rox thing. Because
> your dedication on rox subject, I am willing to help you become a dev,
> but I need to be sure you are not going to dissapear in the very next
> moment.
> Gent
Alin Nastac wrote: [Sun Sep 11 2005, 05:02:27PM EDT]
> Gentoo history is full of such individuals who only want to be sure
> that they could become devs but are not willing to put any effort
> behind it.
Gentoo's history is full of hard-working devs.
The slackers are simply forgotten. ;-)
R
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:14:27 -0400 Peter Hyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
| already been rejected Ciaran.
As you know fine well, nothing was rejected. I gave you QA feedback on
a few maintainer-wanted bugs so that you can impr
Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
already been rejected Ciaran. It's important to realize that the
submissions were intended to AID the developers, not to necessarily be
PERFECT in every way.
Of course they have been criticized by Ciaran. In case you didn't k
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 20:27 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
> > already been rejected Ciaran. It's important to realize that the
> > submissions were intended to AID the developers, not to necessarily be
> > PERFECT in every
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:14:27 -0400 Peter Hyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
> | already been rejected Ciaran.
>
> As you know fine well, nothing was rej
Aron Griffis wrote:
>Alin Nastac wrote: [Sun Sep 11 2005, 05:02:27PM EDT]
>
>
>>Gentoo history is full of such individuals who only want to be sure
>>that they could become devs but are not willing to put any effort
>>behind it.
>>
>>
>
>Gentoo's history is full of hard-working devs.
>Th
On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to an
> open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
> straight off (at least, we don't until we give you commit access). We
> *do* expect you to be prepar
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:55 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to an
> > open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
> > straight off (at least, we don't un
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Many users seem to think
> that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
> most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
> be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression t
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Many users seem to think
> > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
> > most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that th
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > Many users seem to think
> > > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
> >
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:12 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > Many users seem to think
> > > > that
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:55:55 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to
| > an open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
| > straight off (a
Peter Hyman wrote:
> 1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?
I don't know if they are active or not, but you can always try to
*unofficially* check when did they last committed something to CVS -
[1], [2].
[1] http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/svyatogor
[2] http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/la
I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is
an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting
involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of
all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They,
selfishly, monit
On Monday 12 September 2005 19:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The easiest way to improve those ebuilds' chances
> of getting into the tree is by getting them up to a good enough
> standard that whoever picks them up is very unlikely to have to do
> major extra work on them.
To have even more unmaint
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:32:32 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 19:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The easiest way to improve those ebuilds' chances
| > of getting into the tree is by getting them up to a good enough
| > standard that whoever picks them up
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:00 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> What I WOULD like to know is:
>
> 1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?
svyatogor * gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/ru/handbook/ (5 files):
handbook indices for x86, AMD64, and SPARC archs. Bug #101063.
Commit is done
This is from today.
On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted
> ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted queue
> forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise, I'm
> missing why are
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:53:26 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
| 1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right,
| but the ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches,
| interact with upstream develope
-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
12.9.2005, 16:03:17, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Many users seem to think that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree
> with them, for the most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that
> they won't be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we
> are not intere
12.9.2005, 19:32:32, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> To have even more unmaintained packages in the tree. The tree it is that
> needs QA. If "maintainer-wanted" bugs stay open forever - who cares.
[left for later reference]
> Thanks for the pointer. :p So from the user point of view it's better to fil
29 matches
Mail list logo