On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:20:47 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This I understand. However, your previous comments (and spb's saying
> he's busy with some other things) has made some people, myself
> included, wonder if you could possibly use some more help. We aren't
> talking
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:31:44 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Now, I think we could wait even a bit more, but there is much interest
> | in seeing it complete so is natural that more people are willing to
> | help speedi
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:31:44 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Now, I think we could wait even a bit more, but there is much interest
| in seeing it complete so is natural that more people are willing to
| help speeding up at least the first release.
The question is not whether they
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:28:51 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| You forgot to mention that the "small group" is either a subset of the
| interested parties or is commissioned by them. Which doesn't appear to
| be the case here.
Sure it is.
| > Because there are a lot of people wi
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:28:51 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You forgot to mention that the "small group" is either a subset of the
> interested parties or is commissioned by them. Which doesn't appear to
> be the case here.
Given that people wouldn't be working on it if they
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You know that real standards aren't a free for all, right? They're
usually written by a small group, and then commented on by interested
parties when they're already well into being written. Which is exactly
what we're doing...
You forgot t
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:10:51PM -0800, Mike Doty wrote:
> I was never offered this offer.
If you read the emails by Ciaran you will see that he already offered the
council members access to read the draft.
--
Alexander Færøy
Bugday Lead
Alpha/IA64/MIPS Architecture Teams
User Relations, Quali
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> At this stage, individuals can ask for a copy, or for read access to
This stage is usually called early draft, the editor puts every input he
deems useful in the first document and then he sends it for discussion
once he is happy with it. So, no problems on this practice
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:58:48 -0800 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Brian Harring wrote:
| [snip]
| > In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to
| > *not* get a status update on it.
|
| We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:58:48 -0800 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Brian Harring wrote:
| [snip]
| > In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to
| > *not* get a status update on it.
|
| We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not done, we
| don't want to
Brian Harring wrote:
[snip]
In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to *not*
get a status update on it.
We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not done, we
don't want to show you" every month. It's one of the things I intend to
bring up at the march meet
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
> created so far?
>
> I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
> but based on some of your comments in this thread I'
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
| created so far?
They can ask spb. If spb is convinced that they have something useful
to contribute at this stage, and that they won't do somethin
Ciaran,
Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
created so far?
I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit
concerned.
-Daniel
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:47:04 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the
|
| Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the
| result of a collabora
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the
Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the
result of a collaborative effort of representing members of the
organization(s) that is (are) supposed to adh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:57:50 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion
| > | so that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to
| > | rest.
| >
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion so
> | that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to rest.
>
> *shrug* I don't see PMS as being viable until there's a fully
> conformant independent imp
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:12:12 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| 1) ebuilds and *especially* eclasses do way too many weird things and
| can often depend on idiosyncrasies of portage. The eclass bash scripts
| can be quite complex and probably 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) times
| I'
OK, my initial impression of this is:
1) ebuilds and *especially* eclasses do way too many weird things and
can often depend on idiosyncrasies of portage. The eclass bash scripts
can be quite complex and probably 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) times
I'd put the burden of compatibility on the eclass
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:19:12 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
| between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
| strive for. If at all possible, I think that this standardization
| effort shoul
Ciaran,
Admittedly, I'm new to this PMS thing so in many cases I'm speaking
from a position of ignorance, but I guess I need to jump in
somewhere
I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
strive for.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:22:14 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Perhaps not all of the council; distinctly recall diego pushing about
| it though. Quick look through council logs, robbat2 was asking about
| timeline also (jan. meeting specifically).
You've gotta ask *why* certain
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:08:14PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 18:33 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> > >
> > > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Poss
Am Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 18:33 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> >
> > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> > > notification); ei
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> > notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
> > update on it
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
> update on it in council this coming month.
Right now I'm placing a higher priority on get
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:13:54 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| So... how far a long are they?
Better to say what we don't have:
* descriptions of all those pesky little helper programs.
* clarity and detail for certain sections.
| Further, since this *is* something gentoo needs,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:49:56PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote:
> | > Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on
> | > that..
> |
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote:
| > Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on
| > that..
|
| No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm).
| http://cia.n
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote:
> Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on that..
No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm).
http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/PMS
Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled notifica
31 matches
Mail list logo
