Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Thanks for the summary. I think that's a fair assessment of where we are at.
>
> The offered software will be trac, svn, and moinmoin. I'm going to
> look at darcs, and with the help of the haskell team and infra
> determine if we can support it or not.
Chris Gianelloni posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:18:48 -0500:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:47 -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
>> Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Mar 24 2006, 08:55:30AM EST]
>> > As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
>>
On Friday 24 March 2006 21:44, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> The offered software will be trac, svn, and moinmoin. I'm going to
> look at darcs, and with the help of the haskell team and infra
> determine if we can support it or not. No-one has expressed a
> preference for a different distributed VCS i
Mike Frysinger posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:23:11 -0500:
> On Friday 24 March 2006 11:32, Andrej Kacian wrote:
>>
>> "Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
>> > On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > so we're clear, users would b
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Thanks for the summary. I think that's a fair assessment of where we are at.
>
> The offered software will be trac, svn, and moinmoin. I'm going to
> look at darcs, and with the help of the haskell team and infra
> determine if we can support it or not. No-one has expres
George Shapovalov wrote:
Please take a look at #1523 (note the number ;)), it addresses
essentially this issue, or pretty similar.
Thanks, I'd never heard of that, and it's very interesting. Exactly the
kind of thing I am looking for too, in terms of scope/crazyness :)
It was obviously plann
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:40 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 20:04 -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > As many are aware nss-3.11 and nspr-4.6.1 are in the tree. Many
> > packages still set the {nss|nspr}-libs and include
Thanks for the summary. I think that's a fair assessment of where we are at.
The offered software will be trac, svn, and moinmoin. I'm going to
look at darcs, and with the help of the haskell team and infra
determine if we can support it or not. No-one has expressed a
preference for a different
On Friday 24 March 2006 15:06, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Friday 24 March 2006 14:35, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > After reading through that fairly lengthy thread, I'm afraid that I can
> > no longer tell exactly what is being proposed. Who has read access?
> > Who has write access? Bugs are handled
On Friday 24 March 2006 14:35, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> After reading through that fairly lengthy thread, I'm afraid that I can
> no longer tell exactly what is being proposed. Who has read access?
> Who has write access? Bugs are handled where, and by whom? Are we
> considering a fairly tightly
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Fri Mar 24 2006, 02:35:34PM EST]
> After reading through that fairly lengthy thread, I'm afraid that I can
> no longer tell exactly what is being proposed. Who has read access?
> Who has write access? Bugs are handled where, and by whom? Are we
> considering a fairly tigh
After reading through that fairly lengthy thread, I'm afraid that I can
no longer tell exactly what is being proposed. Who has read access?
Who has write access? Bugs are handled where, and by whom? Are we
considering a fairly tightly controlled system, or a wild free-for-all?
Exactly which pro
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:47 -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Mar 24 2006, 08:55:30AM EST]
> > As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
> > can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo
> > infrastructure) that it does n
Ramon van Alteren wrote:
No dev but +1 from me.
I liked slotted mysql a lot and use it extensively.
It has helped us tremendously during our upgrade path and I would be
very sad to see it go.
Public opinion is just that, public opinion, doesn't neccesarily mean
something went wrong.
FWIW,
On Friday 24 March 2006 11:32, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:23:14 +
>
> "Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
> > On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays
> > > and publish their ebuild
On 3/24/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, try to keep this technical discussion technical and leave your
> personal biases out of it.
It's not meant as a personal critisism of Ciaran. Ciaran's being very
helpful in this thread. It just happens that it was his post that
cre
Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:23:14 +
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
> On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays
> > and publish their ebuilds right ?
>
> Not on overlays.g.o, no.
>
FWIW, this is alrea
Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:15:37 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
> Yeah, and the point is? It happens every day, there are already tons
> of third-party overlays used by Gentoo users, but once this thread
> about "official" overlays started, you came here to tell us "wow,
> this all will
On 3/24/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At least in my mind the overlays should be developmental overlays; not
> for public comsumption. This doesn't mean "don't tell anyone about it
> so that no one shows up." It means "interested users will probably
> inquire about helping out, etc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:16:15 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | We get innundated with tons of bogus bug reports every day, overlays
> | or not - see the number of invalid/duplicate bugs flowing every days.
> | We got a couple of bugs in last two a three days ba
On 3/24/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm really uncomfortable with QA intervening anywhere. It would be far
> nicer if the appropriate developers ensured that they weren't breaking
> anything.
+1
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:46 +0100, Andres Loeh wrote:
> As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
> can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo
> infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that
>
> On 3/24/06, Andres Loeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a list of things that I think are essential or highly helpful to
> > our working process:
> >
> > * We should be allowed to continue using darcs for our version management.
> > If that's not possible on Gentoo infra, we should be allo
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:16:15 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| We get innundated with tons of bogus bug reports every day, overlays
| or not - see the number of invalid/duplicate bugs flowing every days.
| We got a couple of bugs in last two a three days basically stating
| "ZOMG, glibc
> > > If the overlay's changelog is included on o.g.o's front-page, and the
> > > wiki / GuideXML site is publically readable, but we just disallow
> > > anonymous access to the overlay itself (only if requested, this
> > > wouldn't be the default setup) ... how would that work for you?
> >
> > It
On Thursday 23 March 2006 19:54, Thomas Cort wrote:
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays?
common sense
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and publish
> their ebuilds right ?
Not on overlays.g.o, no.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:59 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
>>>It is a Gentoo problem, because Gentoo gets innundated with bogus bug
>>>reports when users screw up their systems in weird ways and don't
>>>realise the cause.
>>
>>Convince me that this is something more than
Hi Andres,
On 3/24/06, Andres Loeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a list of things that I think are essential or highly helpful to
> our working process:
>
> * We should be allowed to continue using darcs for our version management.
> If that's not possible on Gentoo infra, we should be allo
Stuart,
I like the idea of overlays but your email here is completely bogus.
Ciaran just explained why overlays are a Gentoo problem, rebutting
Jakub's assertion that there's no need for policies. I don't see any
agenda here, so either you're pulling in external context, or you're
reading into it
Hi Chris,
On 3/24/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
> can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo
> infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that
> are not in th
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Mar 24 2006, 08:55:30AM EST]
> As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
> can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo
> infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that
> are not in the overla
On Friday 24 March 2006 14:55, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> My main point is I don't want one of my tree packages to break because
> some ricer told some n00b to use some crazy ebuild from some random
> overlay that isn't really fit for the general masses. If we take at
> least *some* measures to pre
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:46 +0100, Andres Loeh wrote:
> > If the overlay's changelog is included on o.g.o's front-page, and the
> > wiki / GuideXML site is publically readable, but we just disallow
> > anonymous access to the overlay itself (only if requested, this
> > wouldn't be the default setup
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:16 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> As this should be a separate thread, just one reason or example - I'm
> really uncomfortable e.g. w/ QA intervening in overlays stuff,
> considering the current way QA is being done in Gentoo... Current
> non-interactivity policy has clearly inf
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:59 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > It is a Gentoo problem, because Gentoo gets innundated with bogus bug
> > reports when users screw up their systems in weird ways and don't
> > realise the cause.
>
> Convince me that this is something more than just a power play, and
>
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 20:04 -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As many are aware nss-3.11 and nspr-4.6.1 are in the tree. Many
> packages still set the {nss|nspr}-libs and includes. With nss-3.11 and
> nspr-4.6.1 the proper configs and pkgtools files
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 18:45 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
> PROPOSAL:
>
> a) overlays.gentoo.org -> A sub-domain for hosting overlays or
> 'development sandboxes'. Developers want an area for sandboxed
> development of packages outside of the main tree. As stated in the
> previous thread this allows
Hi Stuart.
> > dcoutts has described the current practice we use in the Haskell
> > team, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only practice
> > that would work for us. I can imagine that if we can come up with
> > reasonable policies for o.g.o, we can switch to a slightly different
> >
Thomas Cort wrote:
>> Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
>> think it's more focused :P )
>
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays? There
> are some ebuilds that aren't allowed in the main portage tree. One
> example is winex-cvs (see
> a
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 09:52:30AM +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Things that are not suited for public consumption should not be made
> public in the first place. This is one reason that I don't think that
> users should be given the opportunity to create their own gentoo-hosed
> overlays. I be
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:57:07 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Sounds like a perfect way to break lots and lots of systems. Those
> | > policies are mostly there for good reason.
> |
> | You want to apply policies on overlays? Well no - sorry, overlays are
>
> It is a Gentoo problem, because Gentoo gets innundated with bogus bug
> reports when users screw up their systems in weird ways and don't
> realise the cause.
Convince me that this is something more than just a power play, and
I'll work with you. But that's the hurdle you'll need to overcome
fi
Hi Andres,
On 3/23/06, Andres Loeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dcoutts has described the current practice we use in the Haskell
> team, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only practice
> that would work for us. I can imagine that if we can come up with
> reasonable policies for o.g.o
On Friday 24 March 2006 01:54, Thomas Cort wrote:
> > Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least
> > I think it's more focused :P )
>
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays? There
> are some ebuilds that aren't allowed in the main portage tree. One
On Friday 24 March 2006 01:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and
> publish their ebuilds right ?
Not on gentoo servers though. They are able already and we can't prevent
it. What I think an overlays.gentoo.org could add is something like
On Thursday 23 March 2006 22:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > I can only assume that other developers have similar overlays too.
> > These overlays form actually a wealth of resources that are hidden
> > away. If there were a semi-public overlay system in which developers
> >
47 matches
Mail list logo
