On 02/18/2012 19:03, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 03:59:37PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Where I think reasonable minds can differ are (appropriate) responses of
>> the form, "This was not done properly, here is how it can/should be done
>> (better)." IMO those should *always* be
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 03:59:37PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Where I think reasonable minds can differ are (appropriate) responses of
> the form, "This was not done properly, here is how it can/should be done
> (better)." IMO those should *always* be public in order to help others
> who are payin
On 02/17/2012 10:22, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 08:35:05PM +, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> Public flogging seems to be more enjoyable than a private email to the
>> developer, the maintainer, and a committer.
>
> I know we are all a little frustrated with some of the local co
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 03:22:38PM -0600, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Also, if everyone starts using [redports], isn't the backlog going to
> become huge?
We're working on getting more hardware.
Having something become "too successful" is a problem we should be happy
to have :)
mcl
___
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 08:35:05PM +, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> Public flogging seems to be more enjoyable than a private email to the
> developer, the maintainer, and a committer.
I know we are all a little frustrated with some of the local commits, but
remember:
"praise in public, critic
On 02/14/12 08:40, b. f. wrote:
On 12.02.2012 22:43, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 02/12/2012 03:33 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 12/02/2012 23:22 Stephen Montgomery-Smith said the following:
On 02/12/2012 03:15 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Today I became another user of redports.org. I can de
> On 12.02.2012 22:43, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> > On 02/12/2012 03:33 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> on 12/02/2012 23:22 Stephen Montgomery-Smith said the following:
> >>> On 02/12/2012 03:15 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>>
> Today I became another user of redports.org. I can definitely
On 12.02.2012 22:43, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 02/12/2012 03:33 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 12/02/2012 23:22 Stephen Montgomery-Smith said the following:
On 02/12/2012 03:15 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Today I became another user of redports.org. I can definitely
recommend it.
Yes, but
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:48:57 +0100 (CET)
Jimmy Olgeni articulated:
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > You should report which version of FreeBSD you are using. It might
> > have tested OK for the committer, but not for you.
>
> I'm watching a tinderbox run right now
On 12 Feb 2012 21:37, "Steve Kargl"
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 03:32:52PM -0600, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >But, the 2nd issue with too many arguments in a function call is
> > >clearly evident on amd64 because I justed test that on FreeBSD 10.
> >
> > Yes. But the issue i
On 02/12/2012 03:33 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 12/02/2012 23:22 Stephen Montgomery-Smith said the following:
On 02/12/2012 03:15 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Today I became another user of redports.org. I can definitely recommend it.
Yes, but it is not without its problems. I tried testing math
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 03:32:52PM -0600, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> >
> >But, the 2nd issue with too many arguments in a function call is
> >clearly evident on amd64 because I justed test that on FreeBSD 10.
>
> Yes. But the issue isn't whether someone else was correct in why the
> port
on 12/02/2012 23:17 Steve Kargl said the following:
> Empirical evidence suggests that ghostscript9 developers are using
> a newer version of the autotools.
>
> laptop:root[262] find . -name configure | xargs grep -i "freebsd\[1" | more
> ./lcms/configure:freebsd[123].*) objformat=aout ;;
> ./
on 12/02/2012 23:22 Stephen Montgomery-Smith said the following:
> On 02/12/2012 03:15 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> Today I became another user of redports.org. I can definitely recommend it.
>
> Yes, but it is not without its problems. I tried testing math/sage on
> redports.org. It reported
On 02/12/2012 03:17 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 08:52:56PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012 20:45, "Steve Kargl"
wrote:
laptop:root[252] uname -a
FreeBSD laptop 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r230975M: Sat Feb 4
09:03:27 PST 2012 root@laptop:/usr/obj/usr
On 02/12/2012 03:15 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Today I became another user of redports.org. I can definitely recommend it.
Yes, but it is not without its problems. I tried testing math/sage on
redports.org. It reported an error building the dependency math/atlas,
which built fine on mine and
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
You should report which version of FreeBSD you are using. It might have
tested OK for the committer, but not for you.
I'm watching a tinderbox run right now and it seems to fail on i386
only; amd64 looks ok.
I just sent a full log to th
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 08:52:56PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2012 20:45, "Steve Kargl"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > laptop:root[252] uname -a
> > FreeBSD laptop 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r230975M: Sat Feb 4
> 09:03:27 PST 2012 root@laptop:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MOBILE i386
>
>
on 12/02/2012 22:45 Stephen Montgomery-Smith said the following:
> On 02/12/2012 02:41 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:27:25PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
You seem to have the faulty belief that this is the first occur
On 12 Feb 2012 20:45, "Steve Kargl"
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 08:44:11PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
> > On 12 Feb 2012 20:41, "Steve Kargl"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:27:25PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > > > on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
> > >
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:35:05 +
Michael Scheidell articulated:
> Public flogging seems to be more enjoyable than a private email to
> the developer, the maintainer, and a committer.
>
> But I suppose it beats doing a backup of your envirement first.
I put it right up there with "Top Posting"
on 12/02/2012 22:41 Steve Kargl said the following:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:27:25PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
>>> You seem to have the faulty belief that this is the first occurence
>>> of this type of issue?
>>
>> So instead of proper re
On 02/12/2012 02:41 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:27:25PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
You seem to have the faulty belief that this is the first occurence
of this type of issue?
So instead of proper report to the port's mai
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 08:44:11PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2012 20:41, "Steve Kargl"
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:27:25PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > > on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
> > > > You seem to have the faulty belief that this is the fir
On 12 Feb 2012 20:41, "Steve Kargl"
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:27:25PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
> > > You seem to have the faulty belief that this is the first occurence
> > > of this type of issue?
> >
> > So instead of proper r
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:27:25PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
> > You seem to have the faulty belief that this is the first occurence
> > of this type of issue?
>
> So instead of proper report to the port's maintainer (including description of
rgl
Cc: "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" , Chris Rees
Sent: Sun, Feb 12, 2012 20:28:23 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Please test your commits
on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
> You seem to have the faulty belief that this is the first occurence
> of this type of issue?
S
On 02/12/2012 01:39 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Is there any reguirement that a ports committer needs
to test their intended commit prior to pulling the
trigger?
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/ghostscript9/Makefile
You should report which version of FreeBSD you are using. It mi
on 12/02/2012 22:16 Steve Kargl said the following:
> You seem to have the faulty belief that this is the first occurence
> of this type of issue?
So instead of proper report to the port's maintainer (including description of
your environment, possibly full build log, etc), possibly with a CC here
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 08:03:28PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2012 19:39, "Steve Kargl"
> wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reguirement that a ports committer needs
> > to test their intended commit prior to pulling the
> > trigger?
> >
>
> Could this not have gone directly to the 'offending'
On 12 Feb 2012 19:39, "Steve Kargl"
wrote:
>
> Is there any reguirement that a ports committer needs
> to test their intended commit prior to pulling the
> trigger?
>
Could this not have gone directly to the 'offending' developer?
Chris
___
freebsd-por
Is there any reguirement that a ports committer needs
to test their intended commit prior to pulling the
trigger?
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/ghostscript9/Makefile
Committed 75 minutes ago.
laptop:root[202] cd /usr/ports/print/ghostscript9
laptop:root[203] make
In file inc
32 matches
Mail list logo
