On 06/17/2011 09:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?
>
> i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the
> ChangeLog kept people from chasing their
On Friday, June 17, 2011 16:37:02 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> >> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> >>> If we
> >>> think that tweaking the changelog policy
El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
>> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
>>> If we
>>> think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
>>> how the git migration goes.
>> Just a few words
Samuli Suominen posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:34:35 +0300 as excerpted:
> On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters. My
>> last post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on
>> RHEL. He was missing the libdbusm
On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?
i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the
ChangeLog kept people from chasing their own tail for a while
-mike
signature.asc
Description
On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
>>> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
>>> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little i
Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
>> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
>> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they
>> simply avoided separate removals.
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> > If we
> > think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
> > how the git migration goes.
>
> Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to gi
On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
> What occurred to me in the context of this whole controversy, was that
> not only can devs simply leave old versions for someone else to remove,
> but they can, and routinely do, remove old versions as part of a commit
> changing something in (some
El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> If we
> think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
> how the git migration goes.
Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from
darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because
the pre
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:25:42 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
>
> And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
>
> Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/06/2011 05:25 ??, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
>
> And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
>
Rich,
That's a bit controversial. Do
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy
doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA either. There
are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/06/2011 03:30 πμ, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011
On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the peopl
On Sunday, June 12, 2011 17:16:08 Francesco R wrote:
> 2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger:
> > On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
> >> > > him. I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
him. I'm not
2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger :
> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
>> > > him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
>> >
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
> > > him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
> > > but still I think that this is
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
> > him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
> > but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
>
> it does seem trivial to remove people w
On 11-06-2011 21:18:09 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him.
> I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still
> I think that this is not a sane situation.
This issue was already raised on the "Glep 48 update (a
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 15:18:09 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:
> > please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council
> > meeting to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt
> > version, I still need to update the html).
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:
> please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council
> meeting to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt
> version, I still need to update the html).
> The GLEP states that the team lead shall be elected annually
On Friday, June 10, 2011 22:36:20 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> - two has been kicked out for playing along just if they can also make
> the rules (as soon as a rule was enacted that they didn't like they
> decided to ignore it, even under request to either not do so or be
> removed from QA);
if i'
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 04:36:20 +0200
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the
> team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to
> be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess)
> want to do. I'm p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11-06-2011 09:23, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 06/11/2011 03:36 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
>> Maybe I scream in private, but what you three (keeping Tomáa out of
>> this)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/11/2011 03:36 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
>>
>> I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of
>> his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well.
Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2011, 20:14:24 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
>
> Perhaps interested people on the team could just say they want to be
> lead, and the council would pick one of them. I think leadership should
> come from the top.
Luckily the council is elected... otherwise this would kind of remind
On 10.06.2011 18:33, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> * Samuli, extremist right wing parties are gaining power in your
> country, I think this is a way better reason to rebel than a stupid file.
True Finns are not right wing. The foreign media seems to always get it
wrong. They
On 10.06.2011 14:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> do we need some kind of policy around membership on "special"
>> project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
>> be another.
>
> in my eyes we do. too much power to be unregul
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I like the idea of appointed leads instead of holding elections, it
> fits into my big picture of less bureaucracy and more meritocracy
> (see my email re running for council on -project). Appointments
> would be made by the "next level up" from
Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
>
> I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of
> his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do note that 4 members
> have already gone from QA. This cannot be a coincidence.
>
For those who wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/09/2011 08:54 PM, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 15:44, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
>> member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the
>> le
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dane Smith wrote:
> Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team
> calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part.
> I don't want to see a new "appointee" merely because the lead upset one
> person. Perhaps if more th
On 09:05 Fri 10 Jun , Dane Smith wrote:
> Part of me thinks this is a good idea for the simple reason that some
> people seem to have issues with QA/DevRel. Perhaps if the lead were
> "appointed by council" there would be less raging every time the team
> tried to do anything. But then again, we
El 10/06/11 17:33, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) escribió:
> * Diego, Berlusconi a way better reason to be outraged I think.
Small clarification here: I'm not comparing Diego with Berlusconi AFAIK
he isn't a corrupt underage fucking politician, I'm pointing him
Berlusconi ruling Italy i
I was thinking of writting this in private, but I bet it will do more
good if I do it public.
I'm 22 (most of you could call me a kid) and a reasonably recent new
developer and I'm sad having to ask you, am I the only one seeing
childishness on your actions, and this yours implies at least Samuli,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/10/11 07:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> do we need some kind of policy around membership on "special"
>> project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
>> be another.
>
> in
On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> do we need some kind of policy around membership on "special"
> project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
> be another.
in my eyes we do. too much power to be unregulated.
what does it take to get this rolling?
sebast
On 06/09/2011 06:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday, June 09, 2011 09:44:34 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>> Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
>>> team.
>>
>> Given the lead is held re
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 09:44:34 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
> > Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
> > team.
>
> Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
> member
Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
> Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
> team.
Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the
lead to
On Jun 9, 2011 9:27 AM, "Samuli Suominen" wrote:
>
> Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team.
So, without trying to comment on the particulars of this situation (of which
I'm blissfully unaware beyond being able to guess from recent list traffic),
do we need some
Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team.
- Samuli
On 06/09/2011 04:10 PM, Diego Petteno (flameeyes) wrote:
> flameeyes11/06/09 13:10:22
>
> Modified: index.xml
> Log:
> Update roster. Sven hasn't been around for a long time; Mike and Samuli
44 matches
Mail list logo