On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:24:09 +0200
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, and me
On 13/05/13 07:46, Christian Faulhammer (fauli) wrote:
fauli 13/05/13 04:46:01
Modified: ChangeLog claws-mail-3.9.1.ebuild
Log:
move libnotify usage over to notification, forgotten in last commit
- $(use_enable libnotify notification-plugin)
+
On 12 May 2013 20:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
[...]
> Besides, most fixes come from users (maybe not the actual patches but
> they spot most of the problems) so providing an easier way for them to
> contribute is preferred. Moreover, github provides other facilities
Is it easier because they alrea
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Taahir Ahmed wrote:
> It should be noted that the first position (that the dependencies specified in
> the ebuilds are not sufficient) is the position of cave's developers. I tend
> to agree -- How is cave to know that there hasn't been a brekaing change in a
> li
I've recently switched to using cave (part of the paludis project) as the
package manager for my system.
It's more conservative than emerge in some instances, specifically when it
comes to bare dependencies (DEPENDS or RDEPENDS that are un-versioned). For
example:
* The ebuild for virtual/li
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2013-05-12 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
gnome-extra/gnome-lirc-properties 2013-05-07 18:57:27 cardoe
dev-python/python-selinux 2013-05-07 19:22:18 swift
kde-base/printer-ap
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:24:09AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, a
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> > enforced for all external contributions. That does not sc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> enf
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
>
> You keep saying this. What do you mean?
I'll clarify!
> A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and
> nothing else. I don't see the problem.
There is no problem if github is only used for hosti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
> [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including
Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the
problem.
- --
Alexander
ale
[...]
> > Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
>
> How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.
Maybe, I can summarize it up a bit:
- GitLab is a Ruby-On-Rails Application
=> Requires very few setup on a gentoo system: ruby, a webserver and a mysql
or postgresl databas
On 13/05/2013 04:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
Michael Palimaka wrote:
I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
I agree, but if infra is not wi
Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
>> for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
>> and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
>
> I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something jav
Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> > > Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
> >
> > How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.
>
> Don't ask, just go for it!
That's not very helpful?
I'm happy to expand on my experience with Gerrit, and I'll gladly
answer specific questions if I c
On Sunday 12 of May 2013 23:21:15 IAN DELANEY wrote:
> # Ian Delaney (12 May 2013)
> # Recommended by upstream's own maintainer to drop the
> # package, no longer valid.
> # Masked for removal in 30 days
> dev-python/etsdevtools
>
> # Ian Delaney (12 May 2013)
> # Recommended by upstream's own m
On Sunday 12 of May 2013 19:20:03 Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Gerrit
> > ..
> > I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to
> > start messing with it personally.
>
> Go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad.
>
> Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > I
On 13/05/2013 03:20, Peter Stuge wrote:
I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Gerrit
> ..
> I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to
> start messing with it personally.
Go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad.
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> I believe Gerrit has been suggested before and rejected because it
> reli
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
> This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> sad to witness this once again.
I've nothing at all against mirroring the repository at github, or
against accepting pull requests there. However, I think that we
shouldn't r
On 13/05/2013 02:08, Rich Freeman wrote:
Second, I think this really points to there being value for something
like Gerrit available on Gentoo, which might be the best of both
worlds. I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just
to start messing with it personally. I'd be intere
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>
> This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> sad to witness this once again.
>
I have mixed feelings for this very reason. The concept of accepting
contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one. The problem i
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts
>> between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people will
>> not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to remotes,
>> then we can enable write access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/12/2013 04:48 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>>> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to
>>> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."
>
>>> Have I missed something? La
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to
>> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."
>> Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server
>> software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Last time I looked, github's server software wasn't open source.
>> Why should we use non-free tools for a central piece of Gentoo
>> documentation?
> The last that I looked, the Verilog designs and other hardware
> schematics were not open source
On Sunday 12 of May 2013 23:21:15 IAN DELANEY wrote:
> # Ian Delaney (12 May 2013)
> # Recommended by upstream's own maintainer to drop the
> # package, no longer valid.
> # Masked for removal in 30 days
> dev-python/etsdevtools
>
> # Ian Delaney (12 May 2013)
> # Recommended by upstream's own m
# Ian Delaney (12 May 2013)
# Recommended by upstream's own maintainer to drop the
# package, no longer valid.
# Masked for removal in 30 days
dev-python/etsdevtools
# Ian Delaney (12 May 2013)
# Recommended by upstream's own maintainer to drop the
# package, no longer valid.
# Masked for remov
Markos Chandras wrote:
> The repository is still accessible in http://git.overlays.gentoo.org
> and read-only access is still available. However, the write access
> removed because of potential conflicts between g.o.g.o and github.
> If you can guarantee me that people will not mess things up and n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/12/2013 04:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 12 May 2013 21:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
>>>
>>> The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself. Not sure if
>>> others
On 05/12/2013 09:15 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your
>> local trees using the following command:
>
>> Developers: git remote set-url origin
>> g...@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.g
On 12/05/2013 14:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I feel strongly against github.
>
> Making something like github the primary point of contact
> communicates many negative things for Gentoo IMO.
Oh heavens, for once I agree with Peter.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/12/2013 02:15 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update
>> your local trees using the following command:
>
>> Developers: git remote set
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 12 May 2013 09:12:03 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
>
> No objections to mirroring it there, and accepting pull requests there.
> However, would an outright move be
On 12 May 2013 21:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
>>
>> The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself. Not sure if
>> others feel strongly about it.
>
> I feel strongly against github.
>
> Making something like github the pri
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
>
> The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself. Not sure if
> others feel strongly about it.
I feel strongly against github.
Making something like github the primary point of contact
communicates many negative thin
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your
> local trees using the following command:
> Developers: git remote set-url origin
> g...@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
> Read-only: git remote set-url origin
> git
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
No objections to mirroring it there, and accepting pull requests
there. However, would an outright move be contrary to our social
contract?:
However, Gentoo will never depend upon a pie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Good day,
The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your
local trees using the following command:
Developers: git remote set-url origin
g...@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
Read-only: git remote set-url origin
git://
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Markos Chandras (12 May 2013)
# Does not build. Dead upstream. Bug #467286
# Removal in 30 days
dev-python/gdl-python
- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: G
40 matches
Mail list logo
