Private messages and public comments through bugzilla are so far
ignored, it seems, so let's try a venue where it's sure to cause a
flamewar instead. My apologies for the inconvenience.
On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:08:53 +
bugzilla-dae...@gentoo.org wrote:
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:08:53 +
> bugzilla-dae...@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person
>> whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit:
>> https://bugs.gento
On 05/19/2013 02:40 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Private messages and public comments through bugzilla are so far
> ignored, it seems, so let's try a venue where it's sure to cause a
> flamewar instead. My apologies for the inconvenience.
>
fwiw the current situation works for me quite well.
--
TL;DR: I like the stabilization bugs as they are.
> >Summary: Please stabilize =dev-libs/libconfig-1.4.9-r1
>
> We agreed a little while ago that bug Summaries should start with an
> atom, if possible, and explain the action later. Also, robotically
> filing thousands of bugs and mak
On 5/19/13 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Private messages and public comments through bugzilla are so far
> ignored, it seems, so let's try a venue where it's sure to cause a
> flamewar instead. My apologies for the inconvenience.
Hey Jeroen, apologies if I have ignored any of your feedback.
Le dimanche 19 mai 2013 à 17:00 -0700, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." a écrit :
> On 5/19/13 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > Private messages and public comments through bugzilla are so far
> > ignored, it seems, so let's try a venue where it's sure to cause a
> > flamewar instead. My apologies for the i
On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:40:27 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Private messages and public comments through bugzilla are so far
> ignored, it seems, so let's try a venue where it's sure to cause a
> flamewar instead. My apologies for the inconvenience.
Since you are the BW lead, I have followed your
On 5/20/13 5:10 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> That would explain why you're still filling gnome stabilization bugs
> while we replied many times we don't want them in their current form ?
If you're still getting bugs from my script it's a bug in my script,
sorry about that. Could you post the
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> This is missing a reference URL or at least the ML thread subject; last
> time I asked, I didn't got either and wasn't able to find this in a
> reasonable amount of time. I find some irrelevant policy discussions
> but nothing that indicates t
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:29:43PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > " stabilisation request"
> This is missing a reference URL or at least the ML thread subject; last
> time I asked, I didn't got either and wasn't able to find this in a
> reasonable amount of time. I find some irrelevant policy di
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:09 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Tend to agree, but rather than focusing on figuring out who messed
> up/etc, let's just move forward.
The link would be handy to refer to when we need to educate future
people; but anyhow, someone else responded something relevant just now
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:00:49 +
"Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/173889?do=post_view_threaded
> The thread does mention that atoms should be first, as well.
> It also makes sorting and viewing much easier (all related atoms are
> together).
Thanks.
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
> (there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
> don't need to "hunt them down" - if you do nothing another script will
> just CC arches after 30 days.
>
> Paweł
>
Uhm
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
> Uhm, automagic stabilization without maintainer ok? This sounds like a
> bad idea. Doing a batch CC-ing after maintainer gave his ok or
> anything similar, which starts, when someone actually aproved the
> stable going is all ok, but doing this automaticly may get packages
On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
>> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
>> (there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
>> don't need to "hunt them down" - if you do nothing another script will
>
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn schrieb:
> Thomas Sachau schrieb:
>> Uhm, automagic stabilization without maintainer ok? This sounds like a
>> bad idea. Doing a batch CC-ing after maintainer gave his ok or
>> anything similar, which starts, when someone actually aproved the
>> stable going is all ok,
Markos Chandras schrieb:
> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
>>> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
>>> (there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
>>> don't need to "hunt them down" - if you d
On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
> a good idea.
Thomas, this effort
On 21 May 2013 19:32, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer resp
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
> bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few* people
> don't like it, I suggest you don't file bugs for packages owned by
> them.
+1
I am (was) unhappy wit
On 5/21/13 1:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100 Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
>> bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few*
>> people don't like it, I suggest you don't file bugs for pac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
>>> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
>>> (there is a package name and maintainer name re
Pawel,
>
> Note that there are several things my script will ignore:
>
> 1. Packages with any bugs open.
> 2. Packages which have at least one ~arch dependency.
>
how about putting up a webpage documenting your script policies? Just to
shorten discussions like this one...
The page need not
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>
> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
> a good idea.
On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:46:18 -0700
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> On 5/21/13 1:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100 Markos Chandras
> > wrote:
> >> I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
> >> bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
> On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
>>
Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
> On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
(there is a package name and maintainer name regex in
Am Mittwoch, 22. Mai 2013, 01:43:15 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>
> Who said, that bugmail is ignored? Repeating myself, it may be
> accidently deleted by the dev or some software (hint: spam filters), it
> may actually even be ignored to re-use the bug later. Since i dont
> remember even seing a hint
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/21/2013 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
>> On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
> Remember this is supposed to _hel
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
>> that a stable request is ok without a ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization?? It lets
everyone opt-in, and we still
On 05/22/2013 08:53 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
>
> So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
> package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization?? It lets
> everyone opt-in, an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
> I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way to
> leave the bug open and state that it will be stabled later. Would
> a comment trigger this in the script? That seems semi-
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>>> or, without a response, try to get a different mainta
On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:25 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Automagic stabilization is a bad idea.
I agree. "Maintainer timeout" is not a valid reason to go
ahead with stabilisation. If you really want to push forward, you
should be required to do more research as bug reporter.
> And just because
On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
>
> So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
> package is OK to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:43 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
> > having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
> > themselves. You should just do it yourself or turn your script off.
>
> Maintainer(s) and arch team me
On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
>> So why don't we add something to pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 11:14 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
>> wrote:
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas S
On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:03:21 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:43 +0200
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
> > > having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
> > > themselves. You should just do it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/22/2013 09:11 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
>> I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way to
>> leave the bug open and state that it will be stabled later. Would
>> a co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 07:03 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 09:11 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
>>> I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way
>>> to leave the bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/20/2013 08:29 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> We have `iamlate` for this in app-portage/gentoolkit-dev.
/usr/bin/imlate , nice ;-)
- --
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version
On 5/20/13 9:58 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 5/20/13 5:10 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>> This generally needs to go first so sorting by summary shows your
>> packages in order and you have a chance to see this part of the summary
>> in bugzilla (with version optionally), the rest of the
Am Samstag, 27. Juli 2013, 21:29:15 schrieb Paweł Hajdan, Jr.:
>
> The original thread got somewhat long, so if I've missed any other
> feedback on which there is a consensus, please let me know.
>
Hi Pawel,
a general idea that might be helpful:
* document your policies on a web page or wiki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Here's a new question on the robo-stable front -- I want to file a bug
(by hand, probably) on the next stable candidate for my package and
have the robo-stable script CC arches and STABLEREQ after 30 days
(assuming no other bugs pop up)
Is that doab
On 23 May 2013 19:11, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Here's a new question on the robo-stable front -- I want to file a bug
> (by hand, probably) on the next stable candidate for my package and
> have the robo-stable script CC arches and STABLEREQ a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 23/05/13 02:40 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 23 May 2013 19:11, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Here's a new question on the robo-stable front -- I want to file a
> bug (by hand, probably) on the next stable candidate for my package
> and have the r
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> Are the sources for the auto-stable etc. script posted somewhere? I
> don't think i've actually seen a URL at all in this thread (or the one
> from a couple of months ago)..
By all means publish your script when done. That seems like
On 23 May 2013 19:49, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 23/05/13 02:40 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 23 May 2013 19:11, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> Here's a new question on the robo-stable front -- I want to file a
>> bug (by hand, probably) on t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 23/05/13 04:14 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 23 May 2013 19:49, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On
> 23/05/13 02:40 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 23 May 2013 19:11, Ian Stakenvicius
wrote: Here's a new question on the robo-stable front -- I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 23/05/13 03:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>>
>> Are the sources for the auto-stable etc. script posted somewhere?
>> I don't think i've actually seen a URL at all in this thread (or
>> th
52 matches
Mail list logo
