Marius Mauch wrote:
> Functional changes, bugfixes, etc. Let people use common sense there.
> The intention is simply that people watching the bug don't have to track
> the overlay as well to get notifications of important changes (like a
> bugfix that prevented them from using the ebuild previous
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > I'm 100% against implicit acceptance. If someone from the sunrise
> > project wishes to add an ebuild to the overlay they should have to get
> > an explicit OK from the team in question.
> we are not doing this, because we do not want
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> All current contributors to the Sunrise overlay take effort to improve their
> ebuild skills and listen to our words closely. I would consider them all as
> devs-in-spee, I am personally planning to recruit some of them when they
> have r
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
>> 3) a yes from herds required, keeping a timeout to avoid bugspam
>>
>> after a comment has been placed on a maintainer-wanted bug in bugzie,
>> there's a grace time of two weeks for herds to either leave a comment on
>> whether they're fine with take over or not. When this
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 06:53:51PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>> | However, as has been pointed out several times in this thread already,
>> | back when the devloper community agre
On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 07:33 -0400, Peter wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
>
> > 1) m-w / m-n requirement
> >
> > Only ebuilds that are reported to bugzie (valid bug#) and set to
> > maintainer-wanted are allowed here as well as maintainer-needed ones.
> >
> > ma
Stefan Schweizer schrieb:
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200
Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and
various other people for help here), we now have a resolution that
should satisfy all involved parties her
Ryan Hill wrote:
>> 2. People who contribute good ebuilds over a certain period of time are
>> allowed upon decision by project devs to actively help maintaining the
>> project. They'll be given commit rights for the project then. Same frome
>> above applies here: If we notice any abuse, we revoke
Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 6/10/06, Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2) Not one large tree but subdirs, one per herd
>>
>> to help herds better keeping track of which parts are alive in the
>> overlay, each herd's ebuilds are grouped in a subdir, e.g. there will be
>> a netmon/ dir with ne
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 04:01:50PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> You need to ask a team member then to move them to maintainer-wanted.
> Usually the teams have no problem with moving bugs over to
> maintainer-wanted because they know that they cannot maintain everything
> themselves.
But Projec
Peter wrote:
> Um, there are numerous "new" not-in-portage-tree ebuilds submitted to bz
> which have been assigned to teams. However, they may still languish. They
> were assigned by the wranglers, and not improperly. Yet, for many reasons,
> the bugs wait. So, will there be a mechanism for a contr
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:33:19 -0400
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
>
> > 1) m-w / m-n requirement
> >
> > Only ebuilds that are reported to bugzie (valid bug#) and set to
> > maintainer-wanted are allowed here as well as maintainer-nee
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> 1) m-w / m-n requirement
>
> Only ebuilds that are reported to bugzie (valid bug#) and set to
> maintainer-wanted are allowed here as well as maintainer-needed ones.
>
> maintainer-needed are only allowed if they're removed from the tre
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200
> Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and
>> various other people for help here), we now have a resolution that
>> should satisfy all involved parties here. This should
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and various
> other people for help here), we now have a resolution that should
> satisfy all involved parties here. This should adress dostrow's demands
> as well.
Nice, I think this is a great improvement.
> 2.
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> 2) Not one large tree but subdirs, one per herd
>
> to help herds better keeping track of which parts are alive in the
> overlay, each herd's ebuilds are grouped in a subdir, e.g. there will be
> a netmon/ dir with net-analyzer/specialapp below it.
A better solution is men
16 matches
Mail list logo
