On 06/17/2011 09:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?
i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the
ChangeLog kept people from chasing their own
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/06/2011 03:30 πμ, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy
doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/06/2011 05:25 ??, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
Rich,
That's a bit
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:25:42 -0700 as excerpted:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
Leaving around old packages because of a
El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
If we
think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
how the git migration goes.
Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from
darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because
the
On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
What occurred to me in the context of this whole controversy, was that
not only can devs simply leave old versions for someone else to remove,
but they can, and routinely do, remove old versions as part of a commit
changing something in (some of)
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
If we
think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
how the git migration goes.
Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from
Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted:
On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they
simply avoided separate removals. In
On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted:
On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they
On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?
i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the
ChangeLog kept people from chasing their own tail for a while
-mike
signature.asc
Samuli Suominen posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:34:35 +0300 as excerpted:
On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters. My
last post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on
RHEL. He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt
El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió:
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
If we
think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
how the git migration goes.
Just a few words regarding
On Friday, June 17, 2011 16:37:02 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió:
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
If we
think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain,
On Sunday, June 12, 2011 17:16:08 Francesco R wrote:
2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger:
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
him. I'm not at all
On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
him. I'm not at all
2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org:
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his
On 10.06.2011 14:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
do we need some kind of policy around membership on special
project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
be another.
in my eyes we do. too much power to be unregulated.
On 10.06.2011 18:33, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
* Samuli, extremist right wing parties are gaining power in your
country, I think this is a way better reason to rebel than a stupid file.
True Finns are not right wing. The foreign media seems to always get it
wrong. They
Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2011, 20:14:24 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
Perhaps interested people on the team could just say they want to be
lead, and the council would pick one of them. I think leadership should
come from the top.
Luckily the council is elected... otherwise this would kind of remind me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/11/2011 03:36 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of
his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11-06-2011 09:23, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 06/11/2011 03:36 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
snip
Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
Maybe I scream in private, but what you three (keeping Tomáa out of
this)
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 04:36:20 +0200
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote:
Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the
team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to
be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess)
On Friday, June 10, 2011 22:36:20 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
- two has been kicked out for playing along just if they can also make
the rules (as soon as a rule was enacted that they didn't like they
decided to ignore it, even under request to either not do so or be
removed from QA);
if i've
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:
please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council
meeting to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt
version, I still need to update the html).
The GLEP states that the team lead shall be elected annually by the
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 15:18:09 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:
please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council
meeting to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt
version, I still need to update the html).
The
On 11-06-2011 21:18:09 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him.
I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still
I think that this is not a sane situation.
This issue was already raised on the Glep 48 update (as
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
it does seem trivial to
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
but still I think that this is not a
On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
do we need some kind of policy around membership on special
project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
be another.
in my eyes we do. too much power to be unregulated.
what does it take to get this rolling?
sebastian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/10/11 07:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
do we need some kind of policy around membership on special
project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
be another.
in my eyes
I was thinking of writting this in private, but I bet it will do more
good if I do it public.
I'm 22 (most of you could call me a kid) and a reasonably recent new
developer and I'm sad having to ask you, am I the only one seeing
childishness on your actions, and this yours implies at least
El 10/06/11 17:33, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) escribió:
* Diego, Berlusconi a way better reason to be outraged I think.
Small clarification here: I'm not comparing Diego with Berlusconi AFAIK
he isn't a corrupt underage fucking politician, I'm pointing him
Berlusconi ruling Italy
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dane Smith c1p...@gentoo.org wrote:
Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team
calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part.
I don't want to see a new appointee merely because the lead upset one
person.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/09/2011 08:54 PM, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On 9 June 2011 15:44, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote:
Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is
Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of
his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do note that 4 members
have already gone from QA. This cannot be a coincidence.
For those who
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I like the idea of appointed leads instead of holding elections, it
fits into my big picture of less bureaucracy and more meritocracy
(see my email re running for council on -project). Appointments
would be made by the next level up from the lead.
Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team.
- Samuli
On 06/09/2011 04:10 PM, Diego Petteno (flameeyes) wrote:
flameeyes11/06/09 13:10:22
Modified: index.xml
Log:
Update roster. Sven hasn't been around for a long time; Mike and Samuli are
On Jun 9, 2011 9:27 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team.
So, without trying to comment on the particulars of this situation (of which
I'm blissfully unaware beyond being able to guess from recent list
Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
team.
Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the
lead to
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 09:44:34 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
team.
Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
member in
On 06/09/2011 06:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 09:44:34 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
team.
Given the lead is held responsible
43 matches
Mail list logo
