On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:16:42AM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Unconditionally removing libraries (instead of preserving them) and making
> their reverse runtime dependencies reinstalled is unacceptable because
> "emerge" process involving multiple packages is not atomic. Simple as that.
> I
On Sunday 04 of April 2010 17:33:17 Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> Besides I
>> can already imagine PMS-related discussion regarding "make the PMs check
for rdeps per default before unmerging things" - thx but no thx.
> This is not related to PMS. Paludis for example does it already with the
> curren
Just replying randomly.
On 05.04.2010 04:33, Tobias Heinlein wrote:
> I think this is a good starting point to get rid of the "some important
> questions are too hard to answer" dilemma that can be implemented
> relatively fast. On top of that I like Sebastian's idea to order the
> quizzes by diff
On 5 April 2010 10:34, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 5 April 2010 08:13, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 5 April 2010 03:13, Joshua Saddler wrote:
[...]
> You guys should take a while to cool off at this stage.
Never mind me. I missed Ben's last email.
--
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Pre
On 5 April 2010 08:13, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 5 April 2010 03:13, Joshua Saddler wrote:
[...]
>> Really, you're mostly making a case for a graphical XML editor like Beacon,
>> rather than making a case for a wiki. :)
>
> That would already be a big improvement, yes.
>
>> That's your problem, t
Ben de Groot posted on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 02:25:11 +0200 as excerpted:
> On 5 April 2010 02:02, Alistair Bush wrote:
>> I'm not overly concerned about what wiki we use. But may I suggest we
>> approach gentoo-wiki to see whether they would like to be involved.
>
> If anybody wants to approach th
Zeerak Mustafa Waseem posted on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:19:06 +0200 as
excerpted:
> esOn Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
>> I really think that the Gentoo recruitment process needs improvement.
>> Right now it seems like a LOT of effort is required both to become a
>> Ge
On 5 April 2010 04:01, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
wrote:
> * I congratulate everyone involved on this that is so motivated to
> create a new option for hosting content for the Developers and Community
> at large and wish all the best for this project.
Thank you!
> * I would humbly like to sugg
On 5 April 2010 03:13, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> Let the renderer take care of the final rendering, as really, tags and markup
> are all arbitrary. What should matter is how it appears in your webbrowser,
> since that'll vary from the source view anyways.
So why are you such a staunch defender of
> On 4/3/10 3:40 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > Are there any other ideas on how to improve our recruitment process?
>
> The idea appeared before, but I think it's worth noting.
>
> Either merge the ebuild and end quizzes, or make the split actually
> meaningful. In my case I just finished both at t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03-04-2010 13:19, Ben de Groot wrote:
< A proposal for a Gentoo WIKI that generated much replies>
I have the following general comments about this thread.
* I congratulate everyone involved on this that is so motivated to
create a new option for
I'd first like to extend the idea of bug #312977. It's basically about a
different level of detail for each question.
I think the quiz questions can be divided into different groups:
1) Questions that are fun to answer. People should either already know
the answer, know where to look, or be willi
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 02:08:06 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 4 April 2010 21:33, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > Having to write a custom stylesheet just to get one wiki page to do what
> > you want is pretty dumb.
>
> Yes it would be. The idea is that you design consistent styling from
> the get-go, s
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it just
> means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a
> different resolution should be used. So what do you think about
> disabling later? I would like to av
Alistair Bush wrote:
> I'm not overly concerned about what wiki we use. But may I suggest we
> approach gentoo-wiki to see whether they would like to be involved.
+1, especially the "overly concerned" part. Seriously folks. Just start
it. Take whatever you as a person feel comfortable with. Tal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04-04-2010 04:50, Dale wrote:
> I felt sorry for the KDE folks when KDE4 was released. It just had
> to be a nightmare to get all that in the tree at once. If they had
> twice as many people working on it tho, it would have been easier. The
> peo
On 5 April 2010 02:02, Alistair Bush wrote:
> I'm not overly concerned about what wiki we use. But may I suggest we
> approach gentoo-wiki to see whether they would like to be involved.
If anybody wants to approach them, that is fine by me. I'm probably
not the right person for that job, due to
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2010-04-04 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-libs/dvcgi 2010-03-31 17:42:31
ssuominen
dev-libs/dvenv 2010-03-31 17:42:31
ssuo
On 4 April 2010 21:33, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> Having to write a custom stylesheet just to get one wiki page to do what you
> want is pretty dumb.
Yes it would be. The idea is that you design consistent styling from
the get-go, so your stylesheets will be ready for those needs. Pretty
much the s
> 1 - requirements
>
>
> In order to choose the best possible wiki implementation, we need to
> know our requirements. So what features do you think are essential or
> good to have? What syntax would we prefer to use?
>
> I myself am a big fan of reStructuredText, which is quite
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 11:21:13PM +0100, AllenJB wrote:
> The way I see it, the "official" wiki has to earn my respect as a
> project. The unofficial wiki already has already been through this
> process. It's no different whether I'm trying a new piece of software or
> a new distro.
>
> It's not
On 3 April 2010 20:56, George Prowse wrote:
> Does mediawiki have captcha ability?
Yes, there are a number of solutions for that.
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
On 5 April 2010 00:21, AllenJB wrote:
> My problem is with the attitude of "let's start the official wiki by
> taking the content of the unofficial wiki, regardless of the wishes of
> the active contributors of those articles".
[...]
> If those who wish to run an official wiki can see no sensible
On 04/04/10 23:45, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:13:19PM +0100, AllenJB wrote:
>> The unofficial wiki may have been created because there wasn't an
>> official one, but that doesn't mean it's any less of a community in its
>> own right.
>>
>> Starting the official wiki b
On 2010.04.03 15:59, Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 03.04.2010, 15:40 +0100 schrieb Roy Bamford:
> > First, we need some metrics - the first step to controlling
> anything
> is
> > to measure it.
>
> So, how do you want to measure those metrics? I for one can't think
> of a useful al
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:13:19PM +0100, AllenJB wrote:
> The unofficial wiki may have been created because there wasn't an
> official one, but that doesn't mean it's any less of a community in its
> own right.
>
> Starting the official wiki by effectively ripping off others work and
> attempting
On 04/04/2010 20:33, Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 17:23:54 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
...
...
GuideXML is only easy if you are used to xml or html. Wikimarkup is only
easy if you are used to it as well. The difference is that with
mediawiki all you have to do is press a button
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 17:23:54 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> As has been pointed out, your table example was unfair, as they don't
> do the same thing. I would frown on such inline styling (that's what
> stylesheets are for), and there are a number of ways you can markup
> tables in wikis. One is to a
esOn Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 04/03/2010 06:19 AM, Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
>
> I really think that the Gentoo recruitment process needs improvement.
> Right now it seems like a LOT of effort is required both to become a
> Gentoo dev and to help somebody b
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Richard Freeman wrote:
> I think the problem is that our recruitment process uses the ability to
> answer complex technical and organizational questions as a way to assess
> maturity. I think that maturity is far more important than technical skill
> in a distro -
Am Samstag 03 April 2010 12:27:38 schrieb Krzysztof Pawlik:
> >> Sounds good, can we at the same time get RESOLVED OBSOLETE (for bugs
> >> that are not valid anymore due to changed situation, RESOLVED INVALID
> >> isn't applicable in this case as it implies the bug is and was invalid
> >> from the
Ben de Groot dixit (2010-04-04, 14:31):
> On 4 April 2010 10:48, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone considered the immensely powerful twiki?
>
> No. So tell us why we should. Specifically, how does it compare to
> MediaWiki in terms of features and performance?
I don't have any particula
On 4 April 2010 11:43, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Mentors can already suggest their students to do them in reverse order.
> As always patches to separate technical and organizational stuff to
> their own quizzes are accepted. My time on recruiting is quite maxed out
> already. Doing this means just not
On 4 April 2010 17:13, AllenJB wrote:
> The unofficial wiki may have been created because there wasn't an
> official one, but that doesn't mean it's any less of a community in its
> own right.
And that doesn't mean that community wouldn't be interested to work
on a new, official wiki that concent
On 4 April 2010 16:33, AllenJB wrote:
> I'd like to ask what you think in launching a site that simply clones an
> existing site is? Why take all the hard work the editors have put into
> their articles on the unofficial wiki and duplicate them on another
> site, creating TWO copies, both of which
On 4 April 2010 17:36, wrote:
> Hm. Can you all just talk to the admin of gentoo-wiki and make it official?
Been there, done that. He's not interested.
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
Hm. Can you all just talk to the admin of gentoo-wiki and make it official?
Am Samstag, den 03.04.2010, 23:05 +0200 schrieb Maciej Mrozowski:
> On Saturday 03 of April 2010 14:16:14 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > Shouldn't we fix that buildsystem then? Do you have an example of a
> > package/buildsystem that does that?
> "We" already do, the thing is that maybe we don't have t
On 4 April 2010 09:31, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 03:20:53 +0200
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> >> GuideXML documents are often experienced as an unnecessary
>> >> barrier.
>> >
>> > I think you should clearly state again that this is not gonna replace
>> > GuideXML, just migrate a few
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 04/03/10 21:00, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
>
>>Maybe if we could find the way to make the knowledge found in
>> quizzes be more "exciting" to new devs, then we could still have a
>> strong recruitment process without the burden of completing the
>> quizzes.
On 04/04/10 15:47, Dror Levin wrote:
> Creating just another wiki is what's pointless. What I want is to
> deprecate all unofficial wikis (there are others besides
> gentoo-wiki.com) which were created simply because there never was an
> official one and creating chaos, then centralize everything i
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 17:33, AllenJB wrote:
> I'd like to ask what you think in launching a site that simply clones an
> existing site is? Why take all the hard work the editors have put into
> their articles on the unofficial wiki and duplicate them on another
> site, creating TWO copies, both o
On 04/04/10 15:15, Dror Levin wrote:
> At first, I'd wish for things to be migrated from the unofficial wiki
> (if the license does not allow for copying, then re-writing it. Our
> users will do a lot of it, I'm sure). I'd wish to migrate a lot of
> things from the forums, after getting the authors
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:31, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> No, he's definitely out to kill GuideXML. Just give him time.
Why the antagonism? Ben isn't out to kill anything, he has no personal
vendetta against anything. Actually, nothing here is personal, but you
seem offended by some of the things whic
> Show me a wiki that produces such beautiful code samples (with titles). Show
> me a wiki that can produce the following formatting for ebuilds:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.xml#doc_chap2_sect7
>
> . . . or a wiki that makes it super-easy to add all sorts of additional
> in-line
On 4 April 2010 10:48, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
>
> Has anyone considered the immensely powerful twiki?
No. So tell us why we should. Specifically, how does it compare to
MediaWiki in terms of features and performance?
Cheers,
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
On 4 April 2010 10:47, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 04/04/10 10:29, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> We _should_ have a wiki for easy note-taking,
>> maintaining todo lists, possibly even meeting minutes
>
> I suppose this^^^ is both a good solution and compromise,
> both to wiki-fans and the doc team.
>
On 04/04/10 08:31, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> completely untrue>
GuideXML may be better for the Handbook use case, with its ability to
produce single page and multipage documents, but frankly I think that
for the rest of the documentation, most of which only covers 1 or 2
pages, the ease of learning
If you want to gauge the feeling in the community there are a couple of
threads in the forums.
Currently this answer seems to be typical of the general consensus when
asked what they could do to help Gentoo/become a developer:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6230439.html#6230439
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 10:22:06 +0200
"Tobias Scherbaum" wrote:
> 5 years ago [...] constantly added [...]
You need to clarify your metric. How are you defining constant? How often does
a new document need to appear?
What mostly happens is steady refinement and expansion of our existing docs,
occ
Patrick Lauer posted on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 10:44:38 +0200 as excerpted:
> On 04/04/10 03:48, Joshua Saddler wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:16:32 +0200
>> Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
>>
>>> - Our formerly outstanding documentation still is somewhat maintained,
>>> but that's it. I haven't seen any n
On 04/04/2010 12:48 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 04/03/10 21:00, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
>>Maybe if we could find the way to make the knowledge found in
>> quizzes be more "exciting" to new devs, then we could still have a
>> strong recruitment process without the burden of complet
On 04/01/2010 11:28 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>> On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks
>>> consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC
>>> ar
On 04/04/2010 12:16 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>>> You are trying to remove a valid status for a case that has been badly
>>> managed ??? Speaking for gnome herd, afaik, all bugs marked L
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 01:37:03 +0200, Sebastian Pipping
wrote:
> [...]
> > >> Here's another idea:
> >> The German Wikipedia uses a concept called "sighted revisions". If
> >> you visit an article without logging in you will see the latest
> >> sighted revision, as an identified user you can also v
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>> You are trying to remove a valid status for a case that has been badly
>> managed ??? Speaking for gnome herd, afaik, all bugs marked LATER are
>> for the simple reason they will be done l
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 10:48:52 +0200, Antoni Grzymala
wrote:
>
> Has anyone considered the immensely powerful twiki?
>
The Webs concept of TWiki is interesting and the table editing nifty,
but we would need to assess if it matches our goals. I somehow fear that
it outreaches our aims a bit.
--
On 04/04/2010 12:35 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 12:50 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit :
>> I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it just
>> means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a
>> different resolution should be used.
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 00:31:52 -0700, Joshua Saddler
wrote:
>
> No, he's definitely out to kill GuideXML. Just give him time.
>
At least for official documentation, that should not happen.
(That excludes non-doc parts of the website though imo. GuideXML is a
XML "DSL" designed for documentation,
On 04/04/10 10:48, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> Has anyone considered the immensely powerful twiki?
if the wikis i have worked with twiki was the least
fun. it feels "strange" and it's native syntax sucks
big time, to say the least.
sebastian
Joshua Saddler dixit (2010-04-04, 00:31):
> Show me a wiki that has the flexibility of our handbook, which can be
> a huge printer-friendly all-in-one doc, or an as-you-need-it doc with
> one page per chapter.
>
> Show me a wiki that has built-in intradoc linking to every paragraph,
> chapter, su
On 04/04/10 10:29, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> We _should_ have a wiki for easy note-taking,
> maintaining todo lists, possibly even meeting minutes. But our
> official documentation should go through sufficient review and
> formatting to make sure we maintain the quality of documentation that
> we have
On 04/04/10 03:48, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:16:32 +0200
> Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
>
>> - Our formerly outstanding documentation still is somewhat maintained,
>> but that's it. I haven't seen any new additions (both to our docs, but
>> also to our docs-team) for years. Peopl
On 4 April 2010 13:01, Joshua Saddler wrote:
[...]
>> I am not pushing for our existing documentation to be migrated into a
>> wiki at this point. But I think that once the place is there, and it
>> functions well, it would be the obvious next step to do so. As I said
>> before, the barrier to con
On 04/04/2010 04:48 AM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:16:32 +0200 Tobias Scherbaum
> wrote:
>
>> - Our formerly outstanding documentation still is somewhat
>> maintained, but that's it. I haven't seen any new additions (both
>> to our docs, but also to our docs-team) for years. P
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 12:33:48 +0200
Torsten Veller wrote:
> perl people use `perldoc` anyway.
Yep. Why have a man page for a perl module? OTOH, if there is something
that goes in /usr/bin, it should get a man page if there is one. But
not for the modules themselves -- that's not needed at all.
J
Joshua Saddler wrote lots of:
> Thanks for sh**ting on my efforts.
See, this is not about your personal efforts. I really do appreciate the
work and time you invest in improving both the docs and PR. But otoh try
to compare what the docs-team and PR did say 5 years ago and what they're
doing today
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 03:20:53 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> >> GuideXML documents are often experienced as an unnecessary
> >> barrier.
> >
> > I think you should clearly state again that this is not gonna replace
> > GuideXML, just migrate a few use cases where a wiki fits better.
> > This is what yo
68 matches
Mail list logo
