Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
Jakub Moc wrote: > So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish! Sorry to see you go, man! You were one of the most hard working devs out there. Your contribution will not be forgotten. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:01:46AM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: > > Whoever is in charge, kindly change my bugzilla account to the email > address this mail is sent from and take care of the setting the > bugzilla privs accordingly. There's still a couple of bugs I've filed > and maybe someone will take care of them. (No need to worry, Colin, > you can sit on your bugs as long as you wish, I won't disturb you in > your limbo), > This policy have recently changed as part of an overhaul on retirement procedures. You'll have to create a new user account and watch the [EMAIL PROTECTED] as documented in http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/retire-process.xml (See 'Retire Bugzilla account' part). Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On 4/17/07, Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:01:46AM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: > > Whoever is in charge, kindly change my bugzilla account to the email > address this mail is sent from and take care of the setting the > bugzilla privs accordingly. There's still a couple of bugs I've filed > and maybe someone will take care of them. (No need to worry, Colin, > you can sit on your bugs as long as you wish, I won't disturb you in > your limbo), > This policy have recently changed as part of an overhaul on retirement procedures. You'll have to create a new user account and watch the [EMAIL PROTECTED] as documented in http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/retire-process.xml (See 'Retire Bugzilla account' part). Oh, wonderful. Thanks so much, really helps and makes a lot of sense to nuke people from the bugs they've themselves filed. Bye. -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 06:01, Jakub Moc wrote: > So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish! I'm sad to see you go but I can't say that I don't understand you. It has been great having you shove security bugs our way when needed. Thank you for your work and best of luck with your future endeavours. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpgmvTNPQKW8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Jakub Moc kirjoitti: > On 4/17/07, Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:01:46AM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: >> > >> > Whoever is in charge, kindly change my bugzilla account to the email >> > address this mail is sent from and take care of the setting the >> > bugzilla privs accordingly. There's still a couple of bugs I've filed >> > and maybe someone will take care of them. (No need to worry, Colin, >> > you can sit on your bugs as long as you wish, I won't disturb you in >> > your limbo), >> > >> This policy have recently changed as part of an overhaul on retirement >> procedures. You'll have to create a new user account and watch the >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] as documented in >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/retire-process.xml (See >> 'Retire Bugzilla account' part). > > Oh, wonderful. Thanks so much, really helps and makes a lot of sense > to nuke people from the bugs they've themselves filed. > > Bye. You can still set a watch to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 16:01:46 Jakub Moc wrote: > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > I'm therefore resigning from this project. I would be grateful if somebody could refer me to the archive URL of the message which triggered this episode so I can make a personal judgment about it? I don't think I can be receiving all messages posted to this list. Thanks. -- CS -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 16:01:46 Jakub Moc wrote: > > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any > > more. I'm therefore resigning from this project. > I would be grateful if somebody could refer me to the archive URL of > the message which triggered this episode so I can make a personal > judgment about it? It was posted on -core, so you probably won't be able to read it. V-Li signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:28:21PM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 16:01:46 Jakub Moc wrote: > > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > > I'm therefore resigning from this project. > > I would be grateful if somebody could refer me to the archive URL of the > message which triggered this episode so I can make a personal judgment > about it? > There's no such thing as it's based on general bad behaviour and not just a single incident. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Petteri Räty wrote: > > You can still set a watch to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Better: you can take your account back in 2 weeks, in the mean time please have a vacation, think about ways to not get too annoyed by people in dummy mode (like me and others from time to time) and please don't be angry because of this forced cool down time =) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 22:32:34 Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 16:01:46 Jakub Moc wrote: > > > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > > > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any > > > more. I'm therefore resigning from this project. > > > > I would be grateful if somebody could refer me to the archive URL of > > the message which triggered this episode so I can make a personal > > judgment about it? > > It was posted on -core, so you probably won't be able to read it. Correct. I was mystified as to why Jakub had received this treatment. During the relatively short time I have been on this list I have read almost all the postings. While some ofJakub's postings have certainly been somewhat acerbic, I do not recall any which I would classify as 'objectionable'. I just hope we are not going to get overly 'precious' about this CoC thing, which btw, I note contains the colloquial phrase 'If you screw up ...'. That sort of lazy slang language has no place in the official document set of any self-respecting organisation. Might I suggest it be replaced by something akin to 'If you discover you have made as mistake ...'. Also I noticed a simple typo: s/noone/no one/ in the previous paragraph. -- CS -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 23:42:36 Wernfried Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:35:01PM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > > I just hope we are not going to get overly 'precious' about this CoC > > thing, which btw, I note contains the colloquial phrase 'If you screw > > up ...'. That sort of lazy slang language has no place in the official > > document set of any self-respecting organisation. Might I suggest it be > > replaced by something akin to 'If you discover you have made as mistake > > ...'. Also I noticed a simple typo: s/noone/no one/ in the previous > > paragraph. > > Thanks for the input, the council already asked us to go over it and > do some rewording/a more positive approach/etc. We'll keep your > suggestions in mind, too. You might find reading the Debian, and particularly, the Ubuntu Code of Conduct a worth-while execise. http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct I find it interesting that the mainstream media have also started publishing Codes of Conduct for their comment blogs. -- CS -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
Sad to see you go. In my pov you really did a good job. I hope the ones in charge of bugzilla come with a solution to this. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 11:19 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 01:10:20 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > [ ... ] > > > Yeah, ulimit won't do it. We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually. > > Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting. We ended up > > having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get > > everything working. We also added another machine to the cluster to try > > to reduce the load on any one server at a time. Nothing we did with > > ulimit made a bit of difference. > > http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-increase-the-maximum-number-of-open-files/ The problem isn't open files. It is file descriptors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/src/linux/include $ head -n 25 linux/posix_types.h #ifndef _LINUX_POSIX_TYPES_H #define _LINUX_POSIX_TYPES_H #include /* * This allows for 1024 file descriptors: if NR_OPEN is ever grown * beyond that you'll have to change this too. But 1024 fd's seem to be * enough even for such "real" unices like OSF/1, so hopefully this is * one limit that doesn't have to be changed [again]. * * Note that POSIX wants the FD_CLEAR(fd,fdsetp) defines to be in * (and thus ) - but this is a more logical * place for them. Solved by having dummy defines in . */ /* * Those macros may have been defined in . But we always * use the ones here. */ #undef __NFDBITS #define __NFDBITS (8 * sizeof(unsigned long)) #undef __FD_SETSIZE #define __FD_SETSIZE1024 -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:54:31PM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > You might find reading the Debian, and particularly, the Ubuntu Code of > Conduct a worth-while execise. > http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Yeah, that one has already been mentioned in the discussion about the CoC. :-) cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpjJVM2YyWwQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:34:02PM +0100, Steve Long wrote: > > > I'm pretty sure it will be actually no loss for Gentoo, since those > > folks that contributed to my retirement far outweigh the benefit I > > could ever possibly be to this project. This can be clearly evidenced > > by their long-lasting good record as in [1] and [2] and [3]. In > > devrel's own words, one needs to "respect the wishes of maintainers". > > > Man first you devs think it's your god-given right to behave nastily to any > usr, then you get all sensitive about Jakub on bugzilla. That is lame, imo. > Maybe there should be something about requiring a thick skin to be a dev, > since you so clearly require it of usrs. > On the contrary we warn people about not behaving badly and if that doesn't help despite many warnings and complaints being filed we finally take to firmer action which is exactly what have happened in this case. > > > So who watches the watchmen? IOW who does one take a complaint about devrel > to, and will there be any action? Complaints about devrel actions should be sent to the Gentoo Council as I've said several times before regarding this and other devrel decisions. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:35:01PM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > I just hope we are not going to get overly 'precious' about this CoC thing, > which btw, I note contains the colloquial phrase 'If you screw up ...'. > That sort of lazy slang language has no place in the official document set > of any self-respecting organisation. Might I suggest it be replaced by > something akin to 'If you discover you have made as mistake ...'. > Also I noticed a simple typo: s/noone/no one/ in the previous paragraph. Thanks for the input, the council already asked us to go over it and do some rewording/a more positive approach/etc. We'll keep your suggestions in mind, too. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpGjYv9NCVcq.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
On 4/17/07, Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And just to be even more clear about this - his bad behaviour isn't only about language but also about his actions on bugzilla such as reassigning bugs without trying to contact maintainers first, reassigning bugs against the maintainers explicit wishes etc. Err, you know very well that devrel has been CCed on the last email exchange w/ peitolm (about ~6 weeks ago)... which, oh what a surprise, hasn't gone anywhere yet again, and the same exact 2 year old bugs have been carried on into yet another ebuild version. But as stated in my original resignation, slacking developers feeling uncomfortable and their wishes to keep ignoring their bugs for another couple of years being shamelessly disrespected are far more important for Gentoo than the actual long-lasting breakage for users and clearly noone should care too much about people who just happen to have getting the bugs fixed in a timely manner a part of their job description. Bug wranglers are in fact dumb assign/CC scripts who definitely shouldn't care for the bugs once they've been assigned. holding developers to higher standards is completely in line with the council wishes I believe. Indeed. I've noticed the high standards being pushed by devrel quite a couple of times, such as in [1]. So Bret, I sincerely hope you'll get your devbox finally running after 3 years or so and you'll continue to be such a great assett to Gentoo as you've been so far. ;) [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38368 Best regards, -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing retired developers from project pages
Actually please exclude the KDE project and its herds from your patch. I'd prefer to handle that manually. Thanks again! On 4/17/07, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:10:14PM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote: > I made a patch to remove all retired developers from the project pages. > If anyone doesn't object I will commit this next week. Removing the tags is fine, but please don't remove the tags. They show who created the page - and there should be an XSLT transform somewhere that converts them to a current (non-gentoo) email address for the person, noting that they are retired. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 -- Ioannis Aslanidis 0xB9B11F4E -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing retired developers from project pages
Ioannis Aslanidis kirjoitti: > Actually please exclude the KDE project and its herds from your patch. > I'd prefer to handle that manually. > > Thanks again! > Sure. Just do it this week and it will not show up when I commit it next week. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On 4/17/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jakub Moc wrote: > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > I'm therefore resigning from this project. > OMG NO! Please reconsider. > I'm pretty sure it will be actually no loss for Gentoo, since those > folks that contributed to my retirement far outweigh the benefit I > could ever possibly be to this project. This can be clearly evidenced > by their long-lasting good record as in [1] and [2] and [3]. In > devrel's own words, one needs to "respect the wishes of maintainers". > Man first you devs think it's your god-given right to behave nastily to any usr, then you get all sensitive about Jakub on bugzilla. That is lame, imo. Maybe there should be something about requiring a thick skin to be a dev, since you so clearly require it of usrs. Please do some research before spouting off. Watch the bug-wranglers@ alias for a few weeks (its too late now) to see that jakub tended to yell and scream and make a bigger mess than he resolved a lot of the time when it came to bug wrangling. > > Finally, my thanks go to devrel and especially our devrel lead, for > the professional, unbiased etc. conduct they've presented on my > devrel bug [5] (sorry, ask your friendly devrel member to unrestrict > if you can't read it, after all I can't access it either), as well as > before. I indeed entirely failed when I removed myself from the > "discussion about possible misbehaviour on [my] side". I'm pretty sure > the fact that noone CCed me there in the first place for about 9 > months was just an unfortunate oversight of our fully professional > devrel. > So who watches the watchmen? IOW who does one take a complaint about devrel to, and will there be any action? The classic answer was always "We watch each other," but that's clearly not working if you are left out of a discussion regarding yourself for 9 months. /me eyes sourceMage in desperation. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:04:39AM -0500, Jeffrey Gardner wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jakub Moc wrote: > > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > > I'm therefore resigning from this project. > > It was recently said that if you had been the 20th or 30th person to get > sanctioned, you could have just relaxed and enjoyed the vacation time. > But since the CoC is fairly new, and you're the first one (that I can > remember) to get suspended, it stings more than it should. > Anyway, what I'm trying to say is don't take it so hard...it's not that > big a deal. > Ok, I'm going to quote something I wrote on the -core mailing list that will hopefully help to clear up this misunderstanding about the decision being based on the new code of conduct. "Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned CoC at all since it seems to confuse a few people. We're not suspending jakub based on CoC but based on a long string of bad behaviour. That behaviour certainly violates the code of conduct in many cases but the suspension isn't based on CoC as such but rather the numerous devrel complaints and warnings he's already received." In short, the suspension is based on repeated bad behaviour during a long period of time and despite warning him several times there's been no improvement in his behaviour. That's why we're calling for a timeout with this suspension and hoping that jakub will reconsider his behaviour. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing retired developers from project pages
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:10:14PM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote: > I made a patch to remove all retired developers from the project pages. > If anyone doesn't object I will commit this next week. Removing the tags is fine, but please don't remove the tags. They show who created the page - and there should be an XSLT transform somewhere that converts them to a current (non-gentoo) email address for the person, noting that they are retired. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpZA5IsgCdCo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jakub Moc wrote: > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > I'm therefore resigning from this project. It was recently said that if you had been the 20th or 30th person to get sanctioned, you could have just relaxed and enjoyed the vacation time. But since the CoC is fairly new, and you're the first one (that I can remember) to get suspended, it stings more than it should. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is don't take it so hard...it's not that big a deal. - -- Jeffrey Gardner Gentoo Developer Public PGP Key ID: 4A5D8F23 hkp://pgpkeys.mit.edu -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGJNP3iR2KxEpdjyMRAuDcAKCYrMSWKW3vejLMGZzzQXcPVF2K4gCfcu8r 9F5Ub7g+aWGm1fD2riE5nwM= =bOk8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Jakub Moc wrote: > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > I'm therefore resigning from this project. > OMG NO! Please reconsider. > I'm pretty sure it will be actually no loss for Gentoo, since those > folks that contributed to my retirement far outweigh the benefit I > could ever possibly be to this project. This can be clearly evidenced > by their long-lasting good record as in [1] and [2] and [3]. In > devrel's own words, one needs to "respect the wishes of maintainers". > Man first you devs think it's your god-given right to behave nastily to any usr, then you get all sensitive about Jakub on bugzilla. That is lame, imo. Maybe there should be something about requiring a thick skin to be a dev, since you so clearly require it of usrs. > > Finally, my thanks go to devrel and especially our devrel lead, for > the professional, unbiased etc. conduct they've presented on my > devrel bug [5] (sorry, ask your friendly devrel member to unrestrict > if you can't read it, after all I can't access it either), as well as > before. I indeed entirely failed when I removed myself from the > "discussion about possible misbehaviour on [my] side". I'm pretty sure > the fact that noone CCed me there in the first place for about 9 > months was just an unfortunate oversight of our fully professional > devrel. > So who watches the watchmen? IOW who does one take a complaint about devrel to, and will there be any action? The classic answer was always "We watch each other," but that's clearly not working if you are left out of a discussion regarding yourself for 9 months. /me eyes sourceMage in desperation. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Removing retired developers from project pages
I made a patch to remove all retired developers from the project pages. If anyone doesn't object I will commit this next week. Regards, Petteri ? retired.patch Index: en/base/alpha/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/alpha/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.6 index.xml --- en/base/alpha/index.xml 4 Nov 2006 14:15:15 - 1.6 +++ en/base/alpha/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:50 - @@ -56,7 +56,6 @@ yoswink spb stefaan -tcort eroyf Index: en/base/embedded/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/embedded/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.24 diff -u -r1.24 index.xml --- en/base/embedded/index.xml 20 Sep 2006 03:15:57 - 1.24 +++ en/base/embedded/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:50 - @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@ vapier yvasilev gustavoz -brix pebenito dragonheart lu_zero Index: en/base/mips/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/mips/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.18 diff -u -r1.18 index.xml --- en/base/mips/index.xml 25 Mar 2007 16:37:04 - 1.18 +++ en/base/mips/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:50 - @@ -33,7 +33,6 @@ psi29a hardave spb - ka0ttic redhatter kanaka eroyf Index: en/base/ppc/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/ppc/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.35 diff -u -r1.35 index.xml --- en/base/ppc/index.xml 1 Nov 2006 22:29:21 - 1.35 +++ en/base/ppc/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:51 - @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ killerfox nerdboy nixnut - stuart wormo nelchael chriswhite Index: en/common-lisp/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/common-lisp/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.6 index.xml --- en/common-lisp/index.xml 10 Nov 2006 05:42:36 - 1.6 +++ en/common-lisp/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:51 - @@ -5,14 +5,10 @@ Common Lisp The Gentoo Common Lisp Project - 2006-10-08 - -Matthew Kennedy - + $DATE: $ The Gentoo Common Lisp Project handles all Gentoo related Common Lisp implementations, applications and libraries in Portage. The project will also handle maintenance of non-Common Lisp ebuilds assigned to the Common Lisp Herd. - mkennedy An overview of supported Common Lisp implementations and libraries in Portage. Index: en/desktop/accessibility/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/desktop/accessibility/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.12 diff -u -r1.12 index.xml --- en/desktop/accessibility/index.xml 24 Sep 2006 18:34:33 - 1.12 +++ en/desktop/accessibility/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:51 - @@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ Lead">WilliamH AllanonJL leonardop -zx -squinky86 Index: en/desktop/gnome/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/desktop/gnome/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.22 diff -u -r1.22 index.xml --- en/desktop/gnome/index.xml 19 Mar 2007 18:56:11 - 1.22 +++ en/desktop/gnome/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:51 - @@ -6,11 +6,7 @@ gnome Gentoo GNOME Desktop -03 August 2006 - - - John N. Laliberte - +$DATE: $ Alastair Tse @@ -67,7 +63,6 @@ dang -allanonjl compnerd foser joem Index: en/desktop/research/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/desktop/research/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.20 diff -u -r1.20 index.xml --- en/desktop/research/index.xml 16 Mar 2004 12:00:41 - 1.20 +++ en/desktop/research/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:51 - @@ -37,7 +37,6 @@ dams pauldv - gerrynjr bradlyatc Blubber lu_zero Index: en/desktop/sound/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/desktop/sound/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.32 diff -u -r1.32 index.xml --- en/desktop/sound/index.xml 4 Feb 2007 13:19:20 - 1.32 +++ en/desktop/sound/index.xml 17 Apr 2007 13:05:51 - @@ -8,15 +8,12 @@ sound Gentoo Sound project -2006-10-19 +$DATE: $ Chris White - Diego Pettenò - - Luis Medinas @@ -28,15 +25,12 @@ fvdpol -flameeyes chainsaw genstef -kito metalgod ticho matsuu chutzpah -tcort aballier beandog dirtyepic Index: en/desktop/video/index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/desktop/video/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.16 diff -u -r1.16 index.xml --- en/desktop/video/index.xml 4 Feb 2007 13:11:31 - 1.16 +++ en/desktop/video/index.xml 17
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 07:43 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > Jakub Moc wrote: > > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > > I'm therefore resigning from this project. > > While there are situations in which you are right about complaining, the > form of some of your complaints isn't exactly nice many times. The 2 > weeks pause probably had been meant to just have you think about this issue. > > > I'm pretty sure it will be actually no loss for Gentoo, since those > > folks that contributed to my retirement far outweigh the benefit I > > could ever possibly be to this project. > > Nobody is perfect, complaints about conduct can be issued in a simpler > and saner way... > > Since I consider your work precious I'd like to see you back after those > 2 weeks. Please try to think about how to improve instead on how unfair > this treatment had been. > Jakub, Luca is exactly right here. The suspension is meant to be a cooling off period, not a message that says "please resign". So please, both for yourself and for Gentoo, reconsider your resignation and use the two weeks to cool off, relax, or whatever. I believe your work is most important, and I'd hate to lose it over this rather small matter. If you wish, please contact me privately. I'll discuss anything you like. > lu > > -- > > Luca Barbato > > Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC > http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero > Regards, -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
On 4/17/07, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > holding developers to higher > standards is completely in line with the council wishes I believe. Indeed. I've noticed the high standards being pushed by devrel quite a couple of times, such as in [1]. So Bret, I sincerely hope you'll get your devbox finally running after 3 years or so and you'll continue to be such a great assett to Gentoo as you've been so far. ;) [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38368 I totally agree. The slack developer should have been suspended... Not you. Best Regards, Alon Bar-Lev. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 09:04 -0500, Jeffrey Gardner wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jakub Moc wrote: > > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > > I'm therefore resigning from this project. > > It was recently said that if you had been the 20th or 30th person to get > sanctioned, you could have just relaxed and enjoyed the vacation time. > But since the CoC is fairly new, and you're the first one (that I can > remember) to get suspended, it stings more than it should. > Anyway, what I'm trying to say is don't take it so hard...it's not that > big a deal. > > Small correction, just for accuracy's sake: Suspension is under devrel policy, not CoC. Otherwise, I fully agree with your last sentence. > - -- > Jeffrey Gardner > Gentoo Developer > Public PGP Key ID: 4A5D8F23 > hkp://pgpkeys.mit.edu > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGJNP3iR2KxEpdjyMRAuDcAKCYrMSWKW3vejLMGZzzQXcPVF2K4gCfcu8r > 9F5Ub7g+aWGm1fD2riE5nwM= > =bOk8 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- Regards, -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Bryan Østergaard wrote: On the contrary we warn people about not behaving badly and if that doesn't help despite many warnings and complaints being filed we finally take to firmer action which is exactly what have happened in this case. Regards, Bryan Østergaard Sorry, I am going to have to call bullshit. The only part of that statement that is remotely true is the last line of that paragraph. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing retired developers from project pages
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:10:14PM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote: >> I made a patch to remove all retired developers from the project pages. >> If anyone doesn't object I will commit this next week. > Removing the tags is fine, but please don't remove the > tags. They show who created the page - and there should be an XSLT > transform somewhere that converts them to a current (non-gentoo) email > address for the person, noting that they are retired. > Agreed; do *not* remove author credits from any page. Work is work (credit is credit), and in fact GuideXML will automatically convert an @gentoo.org email into whatever non-dev email the retiree left in place. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:01:46 +0200 "Jakub Moc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > I'm therefore resigning from this project. I'm sorry to see you go. I'm personally requesting for you to reconsider. Your work has been greatly undermined by certain developers. You've fixed multiple times more bugs than many of the devs with actual CVS commit access by simply doing something about them.. Poke me at any time on IRC to get something done. - Samuli Suominen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing retired developers from project pages
I hope I won't forget! :) On 4/17/07, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ioannis Aslanidis kirjoitti: > Actually please exclude the KDE project and its herds from your patch. > I'd prefer to handle that manually. > > Thanks again! > Sure. Just do it this week and it will not show up when I commit it next week. Regards, Petteri -- Ioannis Aslanidis 0xB9B11F4E
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing retired developers from project pages
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 16:10 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: > I made a patch to remove all retired developers from the project pages. > If anyone doesn't object I will commit this next week. Feel free to commit any hardened or embedded corrections you have anytime you become aware of them. Thanks. -- Gentoo Linux Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:31:00 +0300 Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:01:46 +0200 > "Jakub Moc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any > > more. I'm therefore resigning from this project. > > I'm sorry to see you go. I'm personally requesting for you to > reconsider. Your work has been greatly undermined by certain > developers. You've fixed multiple times more bugs than many of > the devs with actual CVS commit access by simply doing something about > them.. > > Poke me at any time on IRC to get something done. > > - Samuli Suominen ++ /me cries Even if you do go through with the retirement, you'll still provide me with milk, right? ;) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGJQpyii3l5JTHwkcRAk6vAJ9jMTmwFwPHVKL2xOhqw2JvQYLolgCdEGXL 7xt7S0Ir/jBOlzDbPkRYiCc= =mZqj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Last Rite: media-gfx/graphicsmagick
Graphicsmagick is a fork of imagemagick but have been mostly inactive the past 18 months. It's being removed due to inactive upstream and several outstanding security issues (all the imagemagick security bugs also apply to graphicsmagick). The obvious replacement is imagemagick. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On 17/04/07, Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:01:46 +0200 "Jakub Moc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > I'm therefore resigning from this project. I'm sorry to see you go. I'm personally requesting for you to reconsider. Your work has been greatly undermined by certain developers. You've fixed multiple times more bugs than many of the devs with actual CVS commit access by simply doing something about them.. Poke me at any time on IRC to get something done. I was going to write a reply to this effect but you've written it a lot better than I ever could. Jakub, I'll miss you. -- -Charlie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo Policy. Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed. Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug. Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is assigned directly to them. This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to take care of. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:56:58 -0400 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug > assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo > Policy. > > Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or > stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the > herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed. > Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is > acceptable and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to > re-assign the bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that > arch from CC. They should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the > bug. > > Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them > to close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is > assigned directly to them. > > This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify > stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch > to take care of. I couldn't agree with you more, it's only and correct way to handle these bugs. I have recently gone thru some bugs and did just that. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:56:58 -0400 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is > acceptable and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to > re-assign the bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that > arch from CC. They should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the > bug. Since when? The only recent instances of people doing that that I've seen are when people are deliberately trying to create bugspam... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: > I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug > assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo Policy. > > Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or > stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the > herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed. > Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable > and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the > bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They > should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug. > > Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to > close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is > assigned directly to them. > > This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify > stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to > take care of. This is in direct conflict with the security bug policy handling which end up putting the maintainer on the CC: along with the arches. Also please don't cross post. -solar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
Ned Ludd wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: > >> I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug >> assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo Policy. >> >> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or >> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the >> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed. >> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable >> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the >> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They >> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug. >> >> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to >> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is >> assigned directly to them. >> >> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify >> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to >> take care of. >> > > > This is in direct conflict with the security bug policy handling which > end up putting the maintainer on the CC: along with the arches. > > Also please don't cross post. > > -solar > > > Then can we officially say this is at the discretion of the maintainer of said package then? I'd just like this to be official noted as who can make this decision and who can not and what is the recommended handling. To avoid conflicts in the future. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
On 4/17/07, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed. As a maintainer I have to deal with many stable/keywording requests. Those are bugs that generally hang around in my bugzilla queries and fill my mailbox and I do not have any ability to help there or fix them. Those bugmails constitute spam for my mailbox. It would be cool to implement a [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias just to assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them. Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is assigned directly to them. In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version, since they commit to the directory anyway. Best regards, Stefan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 21:36, Doug Goldstein wrote: > Ned Ludd wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: > >> I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug > >> assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo > >> Policy. > >> > >> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or > >> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the > >> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed. > >> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable > >> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the > >> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They > >> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug. > >> > >> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to > >> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is > >> assigned directly to them. > >> > >> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify > >> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to > >> take care of. > > > > This is in direct conflict with the security bug policy handling which > > end up putting the maintainer on the CC: along with the arches. > > > > Also please don't cross post. > > > > -solar > > Then can we officially say this is at the discretion of the maintainer > of said package then? Security bugs are assigned to security for all their lifetime and we handle all bug wrangling. But if that is the only exception a simple note should suffice. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo Linux Security Team pgpTdcUYMZPo3.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:50:26PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > On 4/17/07, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or > >stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the > >herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed. > > As a maintainer I have to deal with many stable/keywording requests. > Those are bugs that generally hang around in my bugzilla queries and > fill my mailbox and I do not have any ability to help there or fix > them. Those bugmails constitute spam for my mailbox. > > It would be cool to implement a [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias just to > assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them. Are you thereby saying you don't care enough whether the arch teams stable your packages to keep track of it? As a package maintainer I prefer to keep track of the status of any of my keywording bugs. > > >Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to > >close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is > >assigned directly to them. That happens already unless there's still undecided questions on the bug (sometimes users add what might be important questions and it's up to the maintainer to decide how to handle that). > > In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild > they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version, > since they commit to the directory anyway. I disagree very much with this sentiment. There's many good reasons for wanting to leave more than one stable version in the tree. If you want the last arch team to remove the ebuild when they're done you can usually just state so in the keywording bug and the arch team will follow the request. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
Stefan Schweizer wrote: > In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild > they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version, > since they commit to the directory anyway. This might be good, but also bad. I usually let the older stable version linger in our tree for an extra month or more, just to be sure I didn't inserted some horribly broken version that cannot be rolled back easily by the users. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:50 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > It would be cool to implement a [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias just to > assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them. While you may not find them useful, there have been 3 recent occasions of user requesting things get keyworded that I maintained on architectures where the packages didn't work. I don't know what these users did, but on all three occasions, I managed to step in and stop breakage from hitting the tree *because* I was in the chain of assignment/CC. I see no problem with some fake alias for keywording, provided the maintainers were still contacted first to allow them to say whether a package is indeed ready for stabilization. Remember, not all stabilization/keywording bugs come from other developers/maintainers. > > Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to > > close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is > > assigned directly to them. > > In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild > they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version, > since they commit to the directory anyway. This only works on cases where the older ebuild isn't in another SLOT and nothing else requires it. Yes, it *should* be cool to do this, but I think cleaning up packages/ebuilds is something best left to the maintainer. You're always welcome to say something along the lines of "last architecture to stable, please remove $ebuild when you're done" on the bugs in question. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: [Tue Apr 17 2007, 08:58:59AM CDT] > Bryan Østergaard wrote: > > >On the contrary we warn people about not behaving badly and if that > >doesn't help despite many warnings and complaints being filed we finally > >take to firmer action which is exactly what have happened in this case. > > >Regards, > >Bryan Østergaard > > Sorry, I am going to have to call bullshit. The only part of that > statement that is remotely true is the last line of that paragraph. This sort of e-mail isn't particularly helpful. In essence, you've baldly called somebody a liar in public, while providing no evidence to support your allegation. You might get better results if you at least pretend that you might not have all of the relevant facts (even if you're sure that you do) and ask for clarification based on what you think you know. Here's an example: "That last paragraph doesn't seem to agree with what I've observed, where Could you explain where the discrepancy arises?" -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpT81TUwtucG.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
On 4/17/07, Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not about how old the bugs are. Some action might very well be in order on old bugs but you still have to work with the maintainer. If you make a reasonable attempt at contacting the maintainer and don't get any responses for say 2 weeks reassigning the bug might be in order. So - why are you lying here again? I've already stated that you '(devrel) have been CCed on the last email conversation w/ peitolm, you've been well aware when the last re-assign happened about one year ago as well. Yeah, you didn't give a damn, what reasonable steps to contact a developer that doesn't care for anything but re-assigning bugs back to himself to keep ignoring them for yet another year do you expect? Sorry, you've miserably failed, you should have retired this guy long time ago before things went this far, since he obviously doesn't care about Gentoo users, but just about his territorial pissings. Instead, you've chosen to jump on me for doing my job. Oh well done indeed. Just reassigning the bug and disregarding the maintainers wish is rude at best and doesn't exactly make future cooperation any easier imo. Maybe just read above? What kind of co-operation are you expecting wrt developers who have repeatedly shown that they can't plain be bothered with fixing their junk, because they are just way too cool to deal with some useless idiots, such as bug wranglers? -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:19:14 +0200 "Jakub Moc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, you've miserably failed, you should have retired this guy long > time ago before things went this far, since he obviously doesn't care > about Gentoo users, but just about his territorial pissings. Instead, > you've chosen to jump on me for doing my job. Oh well done indeed. I believe your job was to assist developers, not to make things harder for them. Meddling with correctly assigned bugs just to generate bugspam for people you don't like falls into the latter category. > Maybe just read above? What kind of co-operation are you expecting wrt > developers who have repeatedly shown that they can't plain be bothered > with fixing their junk, because they are just way too cool to deal > with some useless idiots, such as bug wranglers? It's good that you've seen straight to the core of the issue. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] [proctors] (was: FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour)
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:44:09PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:19:14 +0200 > "Jakub Moc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, you've miserably failed, you should have retired this guy long > > time ago before things went this far, since he obviously doesn't care > > about Gentoo users, but just about his territorial pissings. Instead, > > you've chosen to jump on me for doing my job. Oh well done indeed. > > I believe your job was to assist developers, not to make things harder > for them. Meddling with correctly assigned bugs just to generate > bugspam for people you don't like falls into the latter category. > > > Maybe just read above? What kind of co-operation are you expecting wrt > > developers who have repeatedly shown that they can't plain be bothered > > with fixing their junk, because they are just way too cool to deal > > with some useless idiots, such as bug wranglers? > > It's good that you've seen straight to the core of the issue. Folks, please let this subthread (and all others other subthreads of this thread potentially going downhill, too) die before it turns into a flamewar. Remember this is the Gentoo development list and that the Code of Conduct applies here. Thank you for your cooperation. Good night. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpG67siV8zaP.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
On 4/18/07, Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now, I didn't set out to threaten him in any way but after 30 minutes with no response to my question and even more angry devs demanding me to solve this situation I had to do something to stop it. I personally think trying to talk to the developer before contemplating disabling access is much better than disabling access and asking questions afterwards so I tried to get his attention in a rather drastic way. And somehow he just happened to respond in less than 30 seconds after that at which point we could finally settle the dispute. Good to see that you are s much concerned about other developers. At the same time you've repeatedly decided to ignore any of my requests fo intervene when I've been attacked by users/other developers on bugzilla for no particularly good reason and have been receiving tens of bugspams per hour. Nice to see the double standards that have been developed by our impartial devrel lead over time. I would have expected jakub to respect the maintainer wishes and at the very least try to contact maintainers before repeating this but unfortunately he doesn't see any reason to do so from what I can tell. Why did you once again ignore the points I have made wrt this? Over and over again, you've been very well aware what's been going on w/ peitolm. And wrt the keywording bugs re-assignment, it's something that's been done routinely all the time. And I've said that if any maintainer has issues w/ re-assigning the keywording stuff to arches, they are welcome to contact me and we'll sort it out. (Oh, and not exactly my fault that you got angry because alpha has gone ahead of mips in the slacker stats on these re-assignments, which apparently was something you couldn't bear.) -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stefan Schweizer wrote: > It would be cool to implement a [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias just to > assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them. Or maybe implement new bugzilla keywords, like STABLEREQ and KEYWORDREQ which would be added to the respective bugs. Then you (the maintainer) can easily create (and save) an advanced search that will filter them out, while still being able to check them in a different search. Might be also useful for arch teams to separate stabling and keywording bugs? - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGJUv5tbrAj05h3oQRAl5fAJ9sLOJNaGPEklLkHewQbBTa9KWEfACfd0mT 8+D47kJEnL59PYCaM/vn3OQ= =DnHW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:12:26 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:50:26 +0200 "Stefan Schweizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a maintainer I have to deal with many stable/keywording requests. > Those are bugs that generally hang around in my bugzilla queries and > fill my mailbox and I do not have any ability to help there or fix > them. Those bugmails constitute spam for my mailbox. The bugs you open generate too much information? So basically you do too much work to still cope with the consequences of that very same work? Maybe you can get a dev to act as your secretary? (I am being serious.) This matter appears to be entirely unrelated to the original thread, too. > It would be cool to implement a [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias just to > assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them. So this way you would avoid receiving important information? Why don't you set up bugsy not to inform you about these under [Email Preferences]? Whether it is wise to do this, is a different matter altogether. > In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild > they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version, > since they commit to the directory anyway. Some more policy would be need on this second matter entirely unrelated to the original thread. The last arch dev keywording a package should then check as well whether the package: 1) is SLOTted. 2) has a history of having users choose specific versions (mask newer versions, basically) based on their own needs. If a package is not SLOTted, it is still not clear whether 2) is the case, so IMHO only the package maintainer should ever (yet diligently) clean up so-called "old" ebuilds. Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
Can you guys move all this garbage to the gentoo-devrel mailing list? This is exactly the kind of discussion it exists for. This has nothing to do with development. Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Can you guys move all this garbage to the gentoo-devrel mailing list? This is exactly the kind of discussion it exists for. This has nothing to do with development. Thanks, Donnie Consider this a request from me as well. --taco -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
On 4/17/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you guys move all this garbage to the gentoo-devrel mailing list? This is exactly the kind of discussion it exists for. This has nothing to do with development. +1 Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
On Tuesday 17 April 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Can you guys move all this garbage to the gentoo-devrel mailing list? > This is exactly the kind of discussion it exists for. This has nothing > to do with development. hmm, that sounds peachy clean to me -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: Fw: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy
Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:50:26 +0200 > "Stefan Schweizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As a maintainer I have to deal with many stable/keywording requests. >> Those are bugs that generally hang around in my bugzilla queries and >> fill my mailbox and I do not have any ability to help there or fix >> them. Those bugmails constitute spam for my mailbox. > > The bugs you open generate too much information? So basically you do > too much work to still cope with the consequences of that very same > work? Maybe you can get a dev to act as your secretary? (I am being > serious.) They generate irrelevant information for me because I cannot help with stabling. So I would love to have the possibility to -CC me there after siging the stabling off. >> It would be cool to implement a [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias just to >> assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them. > > So this way you would avoid receiving important information? The information is not important to me, the headlines are just filling my mailbox > Why don't > you set up bugsy not to inform you about these under [Email > Preferences]? This is possible? How can I separate keywording/stable and normal bugs in a general way? > [..] so IMHO only the package maintainer should ever (yet diligently) > clean up so-called "old" ebuilds. or the package maintainer can put a REMOVEOLD keyword on the bug or something to make obvious that he wants it removed. I would love this possibility :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:33:55 -0500: > This sort of e-mail isn't particularly helpful[.] You might get better > results if you [...] ask for clarification based on what you > think you know. Here's an example: "That last paragraph doesn't seem to > agree with what I've observed, where Could you explain where the > discrepancy arises?" +1 Words of wisdom. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Resignation
Dan Meltzer wrote: >> > >> Man first you devs think it's your god-given right to behave nastily to >> any usr, then you get all sensitive about Jakub on bugzilla. That is >> lame, imo. Maybe there should be something about requiring a thick skin >> to be a dev, since you so clearly require it of usrs. > > Please do some research before spouting off. Watch the bug-wranglers@ > alias for a few weeks (its too late now) to see that jakub tended to > yell and scream and make a bigger mess than he resolved a lot of the > time when it came to bug wrangling. That's your opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to express. Others clearly disagree, so there isn't consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Mine is that the issues he raised should have been dealt with so that he didn't need to shout, and more importantly that QA was improved. Which was why he was shouting. And I'm not spouting off: if you expect us to deal with rude devs, they should at least be able to accept criticism from the best bug-wrangler you guys have. If it means someone needs to translate occasionally, so what? spanky did that pretty well in the cases where I needed help. >> >> The classic answer was always "We watch each other," but that's clearly >> not working if you are left out of a discussion regarding yourself for 9 >> months. >> Devrel==HR/Personnel imo. The real point is that bug-wranglers has lost over 50% of it's effectiveness, again imo. jakub and spanky are the two main guys, and it's not just the loss of jakub's prodigious work-rate, which kept a lot bugs from even reaching devs, but the loss of his influence on QA which is a complete disaster for gentoo. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Reply-To Munging [was Re: Re: baselayout-2 and volumes (raid, lvm, crypt, etc)]
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Steve Long wrote: >> But seriously.. why don't you guys switch off reply-to munging, already?! >> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_120444.xml > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~wolf31o2/xml/reply-to.xml for those of you that > care. > Thank you. "Some of the most popular mail clients in use do not support a Reply-To-List function. This causes problems for the users of these clients and has resulted in Reply-To munging being used to reduce complexity for these users." I'm more than happy to modify my client etc, but I still think it might be a good idea for this list, to make it less likely that people will fire off rapid replies in the heat of the moment. (Unlikely, I know.. ;) Or at least that those replies will only be read by the other party, thus reducing the noise in here. After all it's a dev list, and assumes more knowledge than the user m-l so asking people to use a client with Reply-To-List, iff they want to participate, isn't a big deal imo. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] net-firewall/ipsec-tools needs an active maintainer
net-firewall/ipsec-tools is without an active maintainer and has an open security bugs #173219 (latexer seems to be MIA). https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173219 Anyone willing to take care of this package in the future, please update metadata.xml and CC yourself on the bugs. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo Linux Security Team pgpgeczlHnEOh.pgp Description: PGP signature
