Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

> > > Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most > > > of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only > > > confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for > > > non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On 06/16/2016 11:57 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > How about introducing a state that explicitly means "resolved but needs > stabilization"? We already have InVCS keyword for this -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

> > To be honest, I don't really see the need for VERIFIED state. Since > it's used scarcely, it can't be really relied upon. Some users use it > completely incorrectly (e.g. when the bug should be reopened instead). > Indeed. Kill VERIFIED with fire. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

> > What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It would > -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already RESOLVED, > and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it into stable. > Right now I dont think we agree what "RESOLVED" means. * Some people

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200 > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 > > > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 > > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > P.S.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > > > since I'm already subscribed

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On 15/06/16 21:11, Michał Górny wrote: > I would personally go for the following layout: > > - All packages, > - Core system [includes baselayout], > - Eclasses and Profiles, > - GCC Porting, > - Hardened, > - Keywording & Stabilization, > - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously), > - SELinux.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > > since I'm already subscribed to the list. > > > > Please don't expect others to keep

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: kde-misc/akonadi-facebook

# Michael Palimaka (16 Jun 2016) # No longer does anything. Masked for removal in 30 days. # Bug 585786. kde-misc/akonadi-facebook

OT: Mail handling (Was Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:37:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > since I'm already subscribed to the list. > > Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't > handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > since I'm already subscribed to the list. > > Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't > handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others and

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:40:53 -0500 james wrote: > On 06/16/2016 10:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500 > > james wrote: > > > >> On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/16/2016 10:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500 james wrote: On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote: I guess what I mean is these outside

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500 james wrote: > On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote: > >> I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 >> Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> >>> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user >>> confirmed this bug

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote: I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue hacking and/or breaking things, or whatever else, without worrying about their "official"

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On 17 June 2016 at 01:02, Michał Górny wrote: > VERIFIED is used scarcely, and not really consistently. It can only be > used on RESOLVED bugs, and sometimes users use it to confirm that > the bug is resolved. Its also worth pointing out VERIFIED status annoyingly restricts a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user >> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it. > > Are you saying that bugs that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:27:07 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 > > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:32:03PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:18:20 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > > > Michał Górny wrote: > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hello, everyone. > > > > > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > It'd be nice if, when replying in a comment, a flag > could be made available to automatically to state that "I've encountered this > issue, too", and once 2, 3, or 4 of those are logged, Bugzilla automatically > changes

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 17 June 2016 at 01:52, Joshua Kinard wrote: > because > sometimes, issues can get reported that are really obscure and, for example, > tied to a particular hardware configuration, thus cannot be easily and > independently confirmed Isn't that why "RESOLVED: Need Info"

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:47:12 -0400 Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > >> Right now we have the following components: > >> > >> - Applications, > >> -

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On 16/06/16 14:19, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >>> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It >>> would -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already >>> RESOLVED, and it could be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. >> >> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. >> However, we use the two scarcely. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 06/16/2016 09:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. >> >> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. >> However, we use the two scarcely. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> Right now we have the following components: >> >> - Applications, >> - baselayout, >> - Core system, >> - Development, >> - Eclasses and Profiles, >> - Games, >> - GCC

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:18:20 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > Right now we have the following components: > > > > > > -

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 06/16/2016 02:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote: >> We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-). > > > +1. I was going to suggest the same. > Bug is still open even if it is IN_PROGRESS or not in stable. But I currently make use of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:02:13 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC. > > This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for > them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED. > > RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when they close > a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. > However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to > replace the two

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On 06/16/2016 03:19 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > I currently set InVCS for pending-stable fixes in conjunction with the > IN_PROGRESS state. I would like to keep InVCS at least. Exactly -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It > > would -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already > > RESOLVED, and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Right now we have the following components: > > > > - Applications, > > - baselayout, > > - Core system, > > - Development, > > - Eclasses and Profiles, > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC. > > This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for > them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED. > > RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On 06/16/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > > What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It would > -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already RESOLVED, > and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it into stable. > > While

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

Hello, everyone. Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC. This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED. RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when they close a bug. It's also the only state that could be directly transferred from

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On 17 June 2016 at 00:04, Michał Górny wrote: > Revision two: > > - Current packages [bug-wranglers@], > - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@], > - Hardened [hardened@], > - New packages [bug-wranglers@], > - Overlays [overlays@], > - Profiles [bug-wranglers@], > - SELinux [selinux@].

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote: > We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-). +1. I was going to suggest the same. -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16-06-2016 14:51:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200 > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hello, everyone. > > > > > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > > > > > Right now

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. > However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to > replace the two with a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On 16/06/16 13:04, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> Right now we have the following components: >> >> - Applications, >> - baselayout, >> - Core system, >> - Development, >> - Eclasses and Profiles, >> - Games, >> - GCC

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

Hello, everyone. Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to replace the two with a single NEW state. Rationale: 1. Most of developers don't care

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 15/06/16 07:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:15:03 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:12:40 +0200 >> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: >> >>> Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 02:32:41 schrieb Peter Stuge: >>> I would personally be super

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> Right now we have the following components: >> >> - Applications, >> - baselayout, >> - Core system, >> - Development, >> - Eclasses and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Right now we have the following components: > > - Applications, > - baselayout, > - Core system, > - Development, > - Eclasses and Profiles, > - Games, > - GCC Porting, > - GNOME, > - Hardened, > - Java, > - KDE, > -

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

15.06.2016 22:11, Michał Górny пишет: Hello, everyone. On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development' component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split currently used there. Right now

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote: > I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue > hacking and/or breaking things, or whatever else, without worrying > about their "official" branch. We could have a standard that >

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 16/06/16 09:34, Daniel Campbell wrote: > There is overhead in choosing which repositories you want to > include in your 'upstream'. Even with an automated tool like > layman, there's maintenance overhead. We'd need another tool to > assist in

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/16/2016 12:35 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 16/06/16 09:24, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding >> one requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as >> curated? > >> Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 16/06/16 09:24, Daniel Campbell wrote: > To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding > one requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as > curated? > > Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/15/2016 12:22 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 14/06/16 08:48, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> What sort of modularization are you talking about? > The cheap answer is "as much as possible. > >> Would we suggest something like GNOME, KDE, XFCE, Mate, Cinnamon, >> et al getting their own

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/15/2016 12:37 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > You've got most things right, Rich. But a couple of comments follow. > > On 15/06/16 02:25, Rich Freeman wrote: >> 1. Developers wouldn't have access to all the ebuilds in the >> curated repositories. They would only have access to the ones