On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:44:56PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> > Given every dev is complaining about how long is getting this thread and
> > how pointless is.
> >
> > PLEASE AVOID REFRAINING
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
[lenghty email snipped]
Since a ml isn't a place for interactive discussion, could you please
user our irc channel or jabber im?
Thank you
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@ge
About a week ago, i sent a mail to this list saying that i lost my key
and posting a new one (AAC32A11). Now, i'm sending this email saying
that i revoked this new key, since i managed to get my original one.
Sorry for any inconvinience.
--
Carlos "r3pek" Silva
Gentoo Developer (kernel/amd64/mo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Given every dev is complaining about how long is getting this thread and
> how pointless is.
>
> PLEASE AVOID REFRAINING SUCH NONSENSE
>
> point taken, working on it, don't impair our productivity more t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
> Not to sound harsh, but...
[snip the "we're just volanteers" argument]
All F/OSS projects (even Linux with its numerous corporate sponsors)
are, at their core, volanteer projects. Yet the good ones still manage
to build peer review in
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> As R Hill already pointed out, WONTFIX means that the *bug* will never
> be fixed. Fixing the *ebuild* would fix the bug, so WONTFIX isn't the
> right keyword. Following your logic, all bugs dealing with ebuild should
> be marked WONTFIX; in the ebuild's current state the
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:23:23 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| As R Hill already pointed out, WONTFIX means that the *bug* will never
| be fixed. Fixing the *ebuild* would fix the bug, so WONTFIX isn't the
| right keyword. Following your logic, all bugs dealing with ebuild
| shou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:00:02PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>WONTFIX refers to the bug, not the attached ebuild.
>
> And it won't be 'fixed' unless the ebuild is improved, so WONTFIX is
> fine.
>
As R Hill alread
Nathan L. Adams posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:31:30 -0400:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> | > No, I'm saying that having a 'team lead' throw some ar
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:00:02PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> WONTFIX refers to the bug, not the attached ebuild.
And it won't be 'fixed' unless the ebuild is improved, so WONTFIX is
fine.
Cheers,
Ferdy
--
\\|// . . . o o o o O O ( Born to be )
o o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | | WONTFIX doesn't seem the right tool for the job:
> | |
> | |WONTFIX
> | | The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed.
> |
> | And the ebuild attached will never be 'fixed' in
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Yeah, the lack of reopening powers is a problem. I'd rather this was
solved by a) letting any authenticated user reopen any bug and, if
necessary, b) allowing developers to lock bugs.
Agreed. I've requested this before but haven't had any response.
--de.
--
gentoo-de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:06:34 -0600 R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
| | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | > I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing
| | > lists of things that need to be fixed before the ebu
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 11:31:30AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
> I really am curious here:
>
> a) What are the team leads spending most of their time on?
Hopefully not reading this thread
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:06:34 -0600 R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing
| > lists of things that need to be fixed before the ebuild can be
| > considered for inclusion. The WONTFIX resolution along with a
| >
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing lists of
things that need to be fixed before the ebuild can be considered for
inclusion. The WONTFIX resolution along with a comment asking for the
submitter to reopen with a fixed ebuild is used when problems
* Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:55:32 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> | Hash: SHA1
> |
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | | Nope, because I'm not marking things as "I will include this".
> |
> | Accordin
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 01:13:37PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Reviewing an ebuild has nothing to do with inclusion. For inclusion in
> > the tree, it also needs to be tested.
>
> You don't take the slightest look at an ebuild (the code) before
> including it? Any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Reviewing an ebuild has nothing to do with inclusion. For inclusion in
> the tree, it also needs to be tested.
You don't take the slightest look at an ebuild (the code) before
including it? Anyhow, whether its testing or co
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:56 PM, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
*sigh*
Please stay away from that bug. It is assigned to the games team,
as it
is a games bug, and it will be gotten to when we have the time and
not
before. Natha
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:31:30 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Not at all. I'm saying that a) most 'team leads' will not do proper
| > checks because they don't have time to and b) the limited time that
| > 'team leads' have is better spent elsewhere.
|
| I really am curious h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams"
> | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > wrote:
> | > | > Because th
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams"
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | > Because that won't help in the slightest.
| > |
| > | So you're saying that peer review is go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 19 August 2005 08:56 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>In the time it took you to respond to this thread, you probably could
>>have reviewed the ebuild in question...
>
> thank you for wasting our time with a pointless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > Because that won't help in the slightest.
> |
> | So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing things
> | by default is b
25 matches
Mail list logo
