On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:16:43 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:10:23 +0100
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > As detailed before, -* has a different meaning defined by policy; if
> > we want to see that changed it should be brought up for a vote,
> > otherwise its usage in discussions
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:10:23 +0100
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> As detailed before, -* has a different meaning defined by policy; if
> we want to see that changed it should be brought up for a vote,
> otherwise its usage in discussions like these seems to suggest to
> break an existing policy. So, I read
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:31:28 +
"Steven J. Long" wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 "Steven J. Long" wrote:
> >
> > > > > Much better for the arch in question to field the bug, than
> > > > > tell the user there is no problem, and we don't care. That
> >
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 "Steven J. Long" wrote:
>
> > > > Much better for the arch in question to field the bug, than tell
> > > > the user there is no problem, and we don't care. That way you can
> > > > get the user involved in stabilisation and AT via that
William Hubbs posted on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:26:08 -0600 as excerpted:
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.dgi?id=487332
s/dgi/cgi/ Try this one:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487332
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
Tom Wijsman posted on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:10:53 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:07:48 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:58:22 +0100 as excerpted:
>>
>> > Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is
>> > in
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:07:48 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:58:22 +0100 as excerpted:
>
> > Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is
> > insufficient?
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/chart.cgi?category=-All-&datefrom=
Tom Wijsman posted on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 03:53:24 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 03:12:54 +0100 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm attempting to have a discussion with a brick wall.
>>
>> I hit that problem immediately
Steev Klimaszewski posted on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:55:59 -0600 as excerpted:
> There is far more to stabilizing than just closing the bugs.
>
> I've been working for over 2 months now on the GNOME stabilization on
> ARM. There has been a lot involved, including (but not limited to)
> rebuilding ke
Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:58:22 +0100 as excerpted:
> Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is insufficient?
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/chart.cgi?category=-All-&datefrom=&dateto=&label0=All%20Open&line0=320&name=320&subcategory=-All-&action=wrap
>
> PS: As a bo
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 06:25:24 +
"Steven J. Long" wrote:
> Closing those bugs as WONTFIX is more work, and in some cases the bugs
> would be justified, if the user is on the slow arch in question.
They are less work; since it lets the slower arches move their work to
bugs of important packages
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > "Paweł Hajdan" wrote:
> >
> >> Why not allow maintainers to drop redundant stable and even ~arch
> >> keywords from their packages?
> >
> > This is standard practice already.
>
> If there is still pain then maybe we need to re-communicate this, or
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
