On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 05:37:57PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/12/2009 3:04 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > we have that problem only for acl-protected areas, which are a few.
> > i'm proposing a "soft acl" to be able to have more acls without
> > disturbing legitimate exceptional workflo
On 12/12/2009 3:04 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:46:46PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> On 12/12/2009 1:48 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 07:12:13PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
On Saturday 12. December 2009 19.02.14 Oswald Buddenhagen wro
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:46:46PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/12/2009 1:48 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 07:12:13PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> >> On Saturday 12. December 2009 19.02.14 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >>> Whoopsie! Looks like this project has chos
On 12/12/2009 1:48 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 07:12:13PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
>> On Saturday 12. December 2009 19.02.14 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>> Whoopsie! Looks like this project has chosen to restrict commit access.
>>>
>> Then it would not be a kde-develop
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 07:12:13PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Saturday 12. December 2009 19.02.14 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > Whoopsie! Looks like this project has chosen to restrict commit access.
> >
> Then it would not be a kde-developers project.
>
well, actually, most likely it would.
On Saturday 12 December 2009 19:02:14 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> imagine such a message from the pre-receive hook:
[...]
I, for one, hope that such will never get widespread within KDE. It will
certainly not be welcome in "my" little corner of KDE.
-1
--
Kind regards, Esben
On Saturday 12. December 2009 19.02.14 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> Whoopsie! Looks like this project has chosen to restrict commit access.
>
Then it would not be a kde-developers project.
Entirely possible, not disproving you here.
Now, can people please move this discussion to kde-core-devel or
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 06:21:31PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em Sábado 12. Dezembro 2009, às 17.35.52, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > installing such a system also doesn't preclude allowing overrides for
> > urgent cases (say, obvious build breakage and no maintainer is to be
> > found on I
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:38:22AM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > of course, that's quite an overkill *), so i'll just rely on my gut
> > feeling which tells me that it happens too often.
>
> My gut feeling is that we should not rely on gut feelings to make/take
> swee
Em Sábado 12. Dezembro 2009, às 17.35.52, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> installing such a system also doesn't preclude allowing overrides for
> urgent cases (say, obvious build breakage and no maintainer is to be
> found on IRC). at qtdf, we have GIT_FORCE=yes-please to enable forced
> pushes in j
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 04:58:56PM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>> On Saturday 12 December 2009 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>> yes, it's great to live in a filtered reality. i suggest you browse
>>> the kde-commits archives and check *how* often somebody complains
>
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 04:58:56PM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Saturday 12 December 2009 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > yes, it's great to live in a filtered reality. i suggest you browse
> > the kde-commits archives and check *how* often somebody complains
> > about violations of projec
On Saturday 12 December 2009 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>
> yes, it's great to live in a filtered reality. i suggest you browse the
> kde-commits archives and check *how* often somebody complains about
> violations of project policy.
That's actually an interesting question. It's a bit hard to do t
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 04:15:45PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> As I said before; its obvious you want to change the kde-wide
> policies. And thats a fine goal. This just is totally off topic on
> this list.
>
as you obviously don't get it if i don't spell it out: i'm trying to
make *existing* po
On Saturday 12. December 2009 16.07.21 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:54:45PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > On Saturday 12. December 2009 15.45.10 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > yeah, and now back to reality. ;)
> >
> > I may be dreaming, but in the KDE I've worked in for
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:54:45PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Saturday 12. December 2009 15.45.10 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > yeah, and now back to reality. ;)
>
> I may be dreaming, but in the KDE I've worked in for the last 10 years
> this worked out pretty well.
>
yes, it's great to liv
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>> On Saturday 12 December 2009 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:31:26AM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
b) we want all devs to be able to commit to any kde-developers owned re
On Saturday 12. December 2009 15.45.10 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> yeah, and now back to reality. ;)
I may be dreaming, but in the KDE I've worked in for the last 10 years this
worked out pretty well.
--
Thomas Zander
___
Kde-scm-interest mailing list
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Saturday 12 December 2009 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:31:26AM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > > b) we want all devs to be able to commit to any kde-developers owned repo
> > > and
> >
> > mostly
On Saturday 12 December 2009 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:31:26AM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > Can we agree that;
> > a) we want all devs to be able to determine themselves which emails they
> > get?
>
> yes. and we will wait until gitorious implements it properly.
>
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:14:14PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Saturday 12. December 2009 12.07.53 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > yes, and unfortunately, usually people are unaware of particular
> > projects' policies.
>
> Good, so my original mail still holds :)
>
> I understand you want to
On Saturday 12. December 2009 12.07.53 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:19:20AM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > On Saturday 12. December 2009 11.07.58 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > > likewise, we want all devs to be able to comment on and otherwise
> > > > process merge req
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:19:20AM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Saturday 12. December 2009 11.07.58 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > likewise, we want all devs to be able to comment on and otherwise
> > > process merge requests ?
> >
> > no.
> > while commenting is allowed at any time (both te
On Saturday 12. December 2009 11.07.58 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > likewise, we want all devs to be able to comment on and otherwise
> > process merge requests ?
>
> no.
> while commenting is allowed at any time (both technically and socially),
> approving lies in the hands of the maintainers o
On Saturday 12 December 2009 10:31:26 Thomas Zander wrote:
> Can we agree that;
> a) we want all devs to be able to determine themselves which emails they
> get? b) we want all devs to be able to commit to any kde-developers owned
> repo and likewise, we want all devs to be able to comment on and
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:31:26AM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> Can we agree that;
> a) we want all devs to be able to determine themselves which emails they get?
>
yes. and we will wait until gitorious implements it properly.
> b) we want all devs to be able to commit to any kde-developers owned
Starting a new thread as its impossible to follow the old one. I hope this can
be brief, though. Current state attached the bottom of this mail (Thanks
Eike!)
On Saturday 12. December 2009 00.54.33 Eike Hein wrote:
> * In order to handle merge request mail routing, additio-
> nal per-project t
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 05:01:42PM -0800, Chani Armitage wrote:
> yes, everyone in the kde-developers group can commit to any kde repo.
> that will never change.
>
just to add some confusion ... :P
i wouldn't bet on that statement. it's not been true for web modules so
far, and i've repeatedly con
28 matches
Mail list logo
