On 02/26/2017 09:16 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> Now QA again wants to do a questionable action _without_ any approval
> from neither infra nor council.
The council has reached a majority for the following statement in [bug
Bug 611234 - Council vote: CVS headers and git expansion]
"""
The council co
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Lars Wendler wrote:
>>> This is a very useful feature and should not be removed only because
>>> council was told that it's a mere CVS migration cruft. It is not!
>>
>>If this is about keeping ebuilds in your overlay in sync, you could
>>alternatively use the outpu
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 23:30:25 +0100 Michał Górny wrote:
>W dniu 26.02.2017, nie o godzinie 21∶16 +0100, użytkownik Lars Wendler
>napisał:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:59:19 + Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 03:05:09PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > > As the council
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:42:59 -0500 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Lars Wendler
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:07:48 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Robin H Johnson wrote:
>>>
The 2014-10-14 meeting did NOT specify what CVS headers
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Robin H Johnson wrote:
> Why did Repoman not complain about either of these?
Repoman has been fixed in bug 579460, following the council decision.
Also app-emacs/ebuild-mode was changed for removal of the $Id$ header,
and I think a similar change was committed for Vim.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:38:42PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> So what is your suggestion? Keep the status quo and leave all Id,
> Header, etc. in place, including profiles and init scripts? Or are
> these Ids only useful for ebuilds?
I did not ever say it was going to be in init scripts.
Here'
W dniu 26.02.2017, nie o godzinie 21∶16 +0100, użytkownik Lars Wendler
napisał:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:59:19 + Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 03:05:09PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > As the council has decided in its 2014-10-14 meeting (and confirmed
> > > again i
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:07:48 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Robin H Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> The 2014-10-14 meeting did NOT specify what CVS headers were in
>>> question, and it was later decided that this was $Header$
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Lars Wendler wrote:
> There is no need to enable it by default. But it is a very nice way
> to verify ebuild changes if being enabled locally on a git clone of
> the tree. Ever since portage was migrated to git I had this line in
> my .git/info/attributes file on my dev
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:07:48 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Robin H Johnson wrote:
>
>> The 2014-10-14 meeting did NOT specify what CVS headers were in
>> question, and it was later decided that this was $Header$, not
>> $Id$.
>
>When and by whom was that decided? The
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Robin H Johnson wrote:
> The 2014-10-14 meeting did NOT specify what CVS headers were in
> question, and it was later decided that this was $Header$, not $Id$.
When and by whom was that decided? The unanimous council decision was
to remove "CVS headers" and the obvious
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 15:32:56 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Lars Wendler
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:24:38 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>>>Am Sonntag, 26. Februar 2017, 21:16:28 CET schrieb Lars Wendler:
I am completely against removal of this hea
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:24:38 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
>>Am Sonntag, 26. Februar 2017, 21:16:28 CET schrieb Lars Wendler:
>>> I am completely against removal of this header line. It does _not_ do
>>> any harm and I don't understand why
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:24:38 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>Am Sonntag, 26. Februar 2017, 21:16:28 CET schrieb Lars Wendler:
>> I am completely against removal of this header line. It does _not_ do
>> any harm and I don't understand why people want it to be removed so
>> badly.
>> Now QA again w
Am Sonntag, 26. Februar 2017, 21:16:28 CET schrieb Lars Wendler:
> I am completely against removal of this header line. It does _not_ do
> any harm and I don't understand why people want it to be removed so
> badly.
> Now QA again wants to do a questionable action _without_ any approval
> from neit
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:16:28 +0100
Lars Wendler wrote:
> How about QA finally starts acting on useful issues or at least do
> actions that make sense?
Part of the job of QA is to improve the overall quality of the tree.
This includes going through and fixing historical mistakes. You may
think it'
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:59:19 + Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 03:05:09PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> As the council has decided in its 2014-10-14 meeting (and confirmed
>> again in the 2016-11-13 meeting), CVS headers should be removed after
>> the migration to Git.
>Th
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Robin H. Johnson
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 03:05:09PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > As the council has decided in its 2014-10-14 meeting (and confirmed
> > again in the 2016-11-13 meeting), CVS headers should be removed after
> > the migration to Git.
>
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 03:05:09PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> As the council has decided in its 2014-10-14 meeting (and confirmed
> again in the 2016-11-13 meeting), CVS headers should be removed after
> the migration to Git.
The 2014-10-14 meeting did NOT specify what CVS headers were in
quest
On 25 February 2017 at 15:05, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> As the council has decided in its 2014-10-14 meeting (and confirmed
> again in the 2016-11-13 meeting), CVS headers should be removed after
> the migration to Git. Until recently, this was blocked by repoman
> still checking for the $Id$ line.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>
>> Typical questions for tree-wide cleanups:
>
>> - Are new ebuilds forbidden to have '$Id$' or just discouraged?
>> - [same as above] Will new version of repoman complain about
>> lef
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> Typical questions for tree-wide cleanups:
> - Are new ebuilds forbidden to have '$Id$' or just discouraged?
> - [same as above] Will new version of repoman complain about
> leftover '$Id$'?
Not sure. That would have to be controlled via la
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:05:09 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> As the council has decided in its 2014-10-14 meeting (and confirmed
> again in the 2016-11-13 meeting), CVS headers should be removed after
> the migration to Git. Until recently, this was blocked by repoman
> still checking for the $Id$
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> Therefore, I am going to remove the remaining CVS headers throughout
> the tree (except for patches, of course) in two days from now.
>
Speaking from git migration experience, I'd be really careful about
how you go about it. Filtering th
As the council has decided in its 2014-10-14 meeting (and confirmed
again in the 2016-11-13 meeting), CVS headers should be removed after
the migration to Git. Until recently, this was blocked by repoman
still checking for the $Id$ line. The latter is now fixed in the
stable repoman version.
There
25 matches
Mail list logo
