On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:23:06 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >
> > > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > > >
> > > Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
> > > of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
> > > confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
> > > non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having the
On 06/16/2016 11:57 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> How about introducing a state that explicitly means "resolved but needs
> stabilization"?
We already have InVCS keyword for this
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5
>
> To be honest, I don't really see the need for VERIFIED state. Since
> it's used scarcely, it can't be really relied upon. Some users use it
> completely incorrectly (e.g. when the bug should be reopened instead).
>
Indeed. Kill VERIFIED with fire.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux devel
>
> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It would
> -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already RESOLVED,
> and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it into stable.
>
Right now I dont think we agree what "RESOLVED" means.
* Some people close
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał G
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >
> > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-m
On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > > > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
> > >
On 15/06/16 21:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> I would personally go for the following layout:
>
> - All packages,
> - Core system [includes baselayout],
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - GCC Porting,
> - Hardened,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - SELinux.
S
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
> >
> > Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people wh
# Michael Palimaka (16 Jun 2016)
# No longer does anything. Masked for removal in 30 days.
# Bug 585786.
kde-misc/akonadi-facebook
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:37:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
>
> Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't
> handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others
On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
>
> Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't
> handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others and i
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:40:53 -0500
james wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 10:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500
> > james wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>> Hash: SHA512
> >>>
> >>> On 16/06/16
On 06/16/2016 10:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500
james wrote:
On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
I guess what I mean is these outside developers could conti
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:44 -0500
james wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> >> I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue
> >> hacking and/or b
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
>> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user
>>> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to k
On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue
hacking and/or breaking things, or whatever else, without worrying
about their "official" br
On 17 June 2016 at 01:02, Michał Górny wrote:
> VERIFIED is used scarcely, and not really consistently. It can only be
> used on RESOLVED bugs, and sometimes users use it to confirm that
> the bug is resolved.
Its also worth pointing out VERIFIED status annoyingly restricts a
package, and so any
On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user
>> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it.
>
> Are you saying that bugs that haven't been marked
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:27:07 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> > Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Hello, everyone.
> > > >
> > > > H
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:32:03PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:18:20 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > > Right now we have the foll
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> > >
> > > Right now we have
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> It'd be nice if, when replying in a comment, a flag
> could be made available to automatically to state that "I've encountered this
> issue, too", and once 2, 3, or 4 of those are logged, Bugzilla automatically
> changes the state to CONFIRME
On 17 June 2016 at 01:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> because
> sometimes, issues can get reported that are really obscure and, for example,
> tied to a particular hardware configuration, thus cannot be easily and
> independently confirmed
Isn't that why "RESOLVED: Need Info" exists?
Or is "CONFIRME
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:47:12 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >> Right now we have the following components:
> >>
> >> - Applications,
> >> - baselayout,
> >> - Core system,
> >> - Develo
On 16/06/16 14:19, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
>>> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It
>>> would -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already
>>> RESOLVED, and it could be used to signify th
On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>>
>> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
>> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe
On 06/16/2016 09:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>>
>> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
>> However, we use the two scarcely. I belie
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> >
> > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> > However, we use t
On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>> - GNOME,
>>
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:18:20 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > Right now we have the following components:
> > >
> > > - Applications,
> > > - baselayout,
> > > - Cor
On 06/16/2016 02:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote:
>> We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-).
>
>
> +1. I was going to suggest the same.
>
Bug is still open even if it is IN_PROGRESS or not in stable. But I
currently make use of the UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:02:13 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC.
>
> This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for
> them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED.
>
> RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when they close
> a
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>
> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
> replace the two with
On 06/16/2016 03:19 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> I currently set InVCS for pending-stable fixes in conjunction with the
> IN_PROGRESS state. I would like to keep InVCS at least.
Exactly
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 510
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It
> > would -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already
> > RESOLVED, and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it
> > into stable.
> >
>
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Right now we have the following components:
> >
> > - Applications,
> > - baselayout,
> > - Core system,
> > - Development,
> > - Eclasses and Profiles,
> > - Games,
> > - GCC
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC.
>
> This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for
> them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED.
>
> RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when they close
> a bug.
On 06/16/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
>
> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It would
> -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already RESOLVED,
> and it could be used to signify that the fix has made it into stable.
>
> While
Hello, everyone.
Here's the third bugs.g.o redesign RFC.
This time it's about closed bugs. Right now we have two states for
them: RESOLVED and VERIFIED.
RESOLVED is the usual state that the developers use when they close
a bug. It's also the only state that could be directly transferred from
oth
On 17 June 2016 at 00:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> Revision two:
>
> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].
"Overlays" seems a l
On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote:
> We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-).
+1. I was going to suggest the same.
--
Kent
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
On 16-06-2016 14:51:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> > >
> > > Right now we have separate UNC
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> >
> > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> > However, we use the two
On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>
> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
> replace the two with a si
On 16/06/16 13:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>> - GNOME,
>> - H
Hello, everyone.
Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
replace the two with a single NEW state.
Rationale:
1. Most of developers don't care ab
On 15/06/16 07:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:15:03 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:12:40 +0200
>> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>>
>>> Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 02:32:41 schrieb Peter Stuge:
>>>
I would personally be super happy to have my overlay ho
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>>
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Right now we have the following components:
>
> - Applications,
> - baselayout,
> - Core system,
> - Development,
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - Games,
> - GCC Porting,
> - GNOME,
> - Hardened,
> - Java,
> - KDE,
> - Keywording & Stabiliza
15.06.2016 22:11, Michał Górny пишет:
Hello, everyone.
On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development'
component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd
rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split
currently used there.
Right now w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue
> hacking and/or breaking things, or whatever else, without worrying
> about their "official" branch. We could have a standard that
> assumes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:34, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> There is overhead in choosing which repositories you want to
> include in your 'upstream'. Even with an automated tool like
> layman, there's maintenance overhead. We'd need another tool to
> assist in disc
On 06/16/2016 12:35 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 16/06/16 09:24, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding
>> one requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as
>> curated?
>
>> Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 16/06/16 09:24, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding
> one requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as
> curated?
>
> Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the maintain
On 06/15/2016 12:22 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 14/06/16 08:48, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> What sort of modularization are you talking about?
> The cheap answer is "as much as possible.
>
>> Would we suggest something like GNOME, KDE, XFCE, Mate, Cinnamon,
>> et al getting their own overlays
On 06/15/2016 12:37 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> You've got most things right, Rich. But a couple of comments follow.
>
> On 15/06/16 02:25, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> 1. Developers wouldn't have access to all the ebuilds in the
>> curated repositories. They would only have access to the ones the
58 matches
Mail list logo
