On 12/12/2009 12:54 AM, Eike Hein wrote:
> konversation-developers
Sorry, that should have been konversation-reviewers.
--
Best regards,
Eike Hein
___
Kde-scm-interest mailing list
Kde-scm-interest@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-s
On December 11, 2009 14:09:27 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2009 Chani wrote:
> > I wonder, what do project maintainers think about giving such permissions
> > to everyone? a good thing, allowing them to delegate more easily? or a
> > bad thing, allowing any kde dev to come a
On 12/12/2009 12:39 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Friday 11. December 2009 23.09.27 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>> On Friday 11 December 2009 Chani wrote:
>>> I wonder, what do project maintainers think about giving such permissions
>>> to everyone? a good thing, allowing them to delegate more eas
On Friday 11. December 2009 23.09.27 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2009 Chani wrote:
> > I wonder, what do project maintainers think about giving such permissions
> > to everyone? a good thing, allowing them to delegate more easily? or a
> > bad thing, allowing any kde dev to
On Friday 11 December 2009 Chani wrote:
>
> I wonder, what do project maintainers think about giving such permissions
> to everyone? a good thing, allowing them to delegate more easily? or a bad
> thing, allowing any kde dev to come along and do something silly?
In the current SVN setup everybo
On 12/11/2009 5:25 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:52:39PM -0800, Chani Armitage wrote:
>> so... you two are debating whether everyone in kde-developers should
>> have permission to update/merge a project's merge requests?
>>
> no, i'm merely explaining why jeff's idea is
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:52:39PM -0800, Chani Armitage wrote:
> so... you two are debating whether everyone in kde-developers should
> have permission to update/merge a project's merge requests?
>
no, i'm merely explaining why jeff's idea isn't the no-brainer he
thought it to be as far as the gi
On 12/11/2009 5:02 PM, Chani wrote:
It's nice that webkit does things
but that doesn't mean anything to us.
>>>
>>> well, it does in that gitorious cannot simply do what you suggested, as
>>> it would "break" the webkit-like setups.
>>
>> Other than the fact that this statement is mostly
On 12/11/2009 4:52 PM, Chani wrote:
>> I'm talking about technical capabilities. Policy is something else
>> entirely. It's nice that webkit does things
>> but that doesn't mean anything to us.
>
> so... you two are debating whether everyone in kde-developers should have
> permission to update/m
On December 11, 2009 13:48:30 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 4:03 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:17:30PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> >> I'm talking about technical capabilities. Policy is something else
> >> entirely.
> >
> > it's not entirely different. ideall
On December 11, 2009 12:17:30 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 3:12 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:04:38PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> >> On 12/11/2009 2:59 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >>> no. being a reviewer who may ack patches is a higher privilege than
>
On 12/11/2009 4:03 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:17:30PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> I'm talking about technical capabilities. Policy is something else
>> entirely.
>>
> it's not entirely different. ideally, the technical capabilities would
> allow exactly represent
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:17:30PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> I'm talking about technical capabilities. Policy is something else
> entirely.
>
it's not entirely different. ideally, the technical capabilities would
allow exactly representing the policy. but for that, there would have to
be no wa
On 12/11/2009 3:12 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:04:38PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> On 12/11/2009 2:59 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>> no. being a reviewer who may ack patches is a higher privilege than
>>> having commit access.
>>
>> Um, right.
>>
>> Let's just s
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:04:38PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 2:59 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > no. being a reviewer who may ack patches is a higher privilege than
> > having commit access.
>
> Um, right.
>
> Let's just see how far that reviewer gets if he doesn't have commi
On 12/11/2009 2:59 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:33:58AM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> In fact, it probably makes sense to put the permission to change merge
>> request statuses into the Committers category (since they have
>> permission to modify the code via pushes,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:33:58AM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> In fact, it probably makes sense to put the permission to change merge
> request statuses into the Committers category (since they have
> permission to modify the code via pushes, they're the ones that can
> actually apply the code in
On December 11, 2009 06:30:57 Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> On Thursday 10 December 2009 19:24:13 Chani wrote:
> > gitorious currently doesn't allow you to choose what mail you receive.
> > everyone in the kde-developers group was getting amarok's merge request
> > email, which was kinda annoying, e
On Thursday 10 December 2009 19:24:13 Chani wrote:
> gitorious currently doesn't allow you to choose what mail you receive.
> everyone in the kde-developers group was getting amarok's merge request
> email, which was kinda annoying, especially with other projects talking
> about moving to git b
Marius Mårnes Mathiesen wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Chani mailto:chan...@gmail.com>>
>
> because svn doesn't email you every project's merge requests (since
> it doesn't
> *have* merge requests, but that's besides the point).
> imagine if suddenly reviewboard started sending all the mail i
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em Sexta-feira 11. Dezembro 2009, às 00.29.59, Chani escreveu:
>> On December 10, 2009 15:13:44 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> Em Quinta-feira 10. Dezembro 2009, às 18.09.14, Jeff Mitchell escreveu:
> We aren't going to switch to Gitorious with the current merge request
>>>
Le jeudi 10 décembre 2009 07:53:11 PM, Matt Rogers a écrit :
> On Thursday 10 December 2009 12:30:01 Chani wrote:
> > > > Tonight was yesterday, we are still waiting for your part of the
> > > > script, you can also make a ruby function named closeBug for
> > > > instance, and I'll basically put it
22 matches
Mail list logo
