-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
On 14:37 Tue 13 Aug , Rich Freeman wrote:
If a maintainer is holding something up for months by all means
escalate it if you think it is justified, but if a maintainer just
wants a few days to look into things, that
On 13/08/13 10:10, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
[3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit
And all boils down to the fact gerrit needs to be fixed to take patches
from a mailing list or provide some sane alias to cope with it's
specific ways...
lu
Luca Barbato wrote:
[3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit
And all boils down to the fact gerrit needs to be fixed to take
patches from a mailing list
Usually Gerrit just needs an OpenID in order to accept git push via SSH.
That seems significantly better to me than
On 14/08/13 17:56, Peter Stuge wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
[3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit
And all boils down to the fact gerrit needs to be fixed to take
patches from a mailing list
Usually Gerrit just needs an OpenID in order to accept git push via SSH.
That
As per my comment in bugzilla [1] I said that the patch should be submitted
upstream prior having it in cvs.
Yet you decided to completely ignore my statement and just smash in the
patch anyway [2].
Please don't do this ever again. We had shitload of distro patches before
and it is hell to strip
On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 10:10 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
As per my comment in bugzilla [1] I said that the patch should be
submitted upstream prior having it in cvs.
Yet you decided to completely ignore my statement and just smash in
the patch anyway [2].
Please don't do this ever
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:00:57 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Tomáš, considering that libreoffice and libreoffice-bin were both
broken on ~arch (so ~arch users did not have a compatible office
suite to fall back on); the bug had 33 people in the CC list; a
working patch
On 8/13/13 8:39 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Your arguments make sense but you should also consider it the other
way: When you are maintaining a package properly by forwarding patches
upstream, having $randomdev jumping in, adding a patch, and letting you
clean up the mess is kind of annoying.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
One thing I think is really important is respecting the maintainers. If
maintainer said please send the patch upstream before committing to
cvs, it is _not_ OK to just ignore that. There are other options
On 14:37 Tue 13 Aug , Rich Freeman wrote:
If a maintainer is holding something up for months by all means
escalate it if you think it is justified, but if a maintainer just
wants a few days to look into things, that isn't asking too much. If
this were a security patch I might feel
10 matches
Mail list logo
