On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:58:04 -0500
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 20 January 2014 12:26:13 William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in
> > > the one place that impacts everyone --
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:42:14 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> So, this was what I was trying to get at in my email. I see a couple
> of different models being thrown around and they really differ on the
> guidelines as to how QA would apply the power to suspend devs.
Looking at the rest of your mail
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 02:58:45 -0800
Alec Warner wrote:
> Of course it is. We want to send the message that if a person's
> contributions are not up to par, their access to commit to the
> project will be revoked, until they can prove that they can
> contribute at a level that is not detrimental to
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:00:14 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I
> see is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
Can you avoid top posting? Had to scroll down to see who you reply to.
> People are not machines. Volunte
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:54:00 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:22:23 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > And the biggest "flamewar" so far was about cosmetic issues.
> > Y'know, if I get around to it I'll try to work towards making most
> > of these warnings fatal, then you can'
Am Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2014, 18:54:00 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:22:23 +0800
>
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > And the biggest "flamewar" so far was about cosmetic issues.
> > Y'know, if I get around to it I'll try to work towards making most of
> > these warnings fatal, then y
On 01/22/14 14:34, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Do you realise the message that is sent by denying someone access? You
>> > are saying that person is not good enough to work on Gentoo. Do you
>> > really want to send that message?
> Yes. And I have no problem being the Evil Guy who pulls the trigger,
>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 01/22/2014 03:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
>> is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
>>
>> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:22:23 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> And the biggest "flamewar" so far was about cosmetic issues.
> Y'know, if I get around to it I'll try to work towards making most of
> these warnings fatal, then you can't accidentally add such things.
> (And people not using repoman will h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/22/2014 03:05 PM, Alex Xu wrote:
> On 21/01/14 10:54 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> x11-misc/x11vnc
>
> I can proxy this if nobody wants.
>
We can do that together, I use it as well.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:46:28 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Instead, we should come up with a clear set of rules under what
> circumstances package maintainers are allowed to stabilise ebuilds
> themselves on all architectures.
The cases where stabilisation is important (for security, progress) a
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:22:07 -0700
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> Yes, thoughts, absolutely. Asking for QA to be at the same time judge,
> party and executioner. Need I say more?
Actually, infra would be the executioner. Also, as already pointed
out, this practice was established a very long time ago,
On 21/01/14 10:54 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> x11-misc/x11vnc
I can proxy this if nobody wants.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 01/22/2014 03:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
> is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
>
> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their
> freely given time nullified and access remove
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
> is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
>
> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their
> freely given time nullified and acc
On 01/22/2014 11:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
>
> People already do that without revoking commit access, e.g. when the
> recruitment project tells you they don't want to process your recruit
> or when project leads don't respond to membership applications at all
> or when the ComRel lead is not inter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/22/2014 08:00 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
People already do that without revoking commit access, e.g. when the
recruitment project tells you they don't want to process your recruit
or when project leads don't respond to membership applications at
17 matches
Mail list logo
