> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Diamond wrote:
> It looks like I can't edit
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Games/Ebuild_howto, is it a
> bug?
You can't because it is a project page. But I think you can leave a
message there on the talk page.
> gamesenv function looks outdated there. This fun
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:44:28 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> So if a project ignores the community, the council, the QA team AND
> violates GLEP39, we allow that, because they still do commits?
It looks like I can't edit
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Games/Ebuild_howto, is it a bug?
gamesenv func
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
>> What specific action are you advocating for which hasn't been done?
>>
>
> Start with enforcing GLEP39 which is still violated.
>
I said "specific" - what do you mean by "enforcing GLEP39?"
--
Rich
On 02/25/2015 04:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:44 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 02/21/2015 10:16 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> Am Samstag, 21. Februar 2015, 20:16:31 schrieb hasufell:
>>>
What did the council say again about the functionality of the team?
What's
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:44 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 02/21/2015 10:16 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 21. Februar 2015, 20:16:31 schrieb hasufell:
>>
>>> What did the council say again about the functionality of the team?
>>> What's the argumentation to not do anything, except decid
On 02/21/2015 10:16 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 21. Februar 2015, 20:16:31 schrieb hasufell:
>
>> What did the council say again about the functionality of the team?
>> What's the argumentation to not do anything, except deciding policies
>> over it's head?
>
> functionality != wi
On 02/21/2015 10:16 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 21. Februar 2015, 20:16:31 schrieb hasufell:
>
>> What did the council say again about the functionality of the team?
>> What's the argumentation to not do anything, except deciding policies
>> over it's head?
>
> functionality != wi
Am Samstag, 21. Februar 2015, 20:16:31 schrieb hasufell:
> What did the council say again about the functionality of the team?
> What's the argumentation to not do anything, except deciding policies
> over it's head?
functionality != willingness to interact with others
(seems to be a recurring p
Ulrich Mueller:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2015, hasufell wrote:
>
>> Has this been done in cooperation with the games team? If not, why?
>
> The games team is in CC of bug 537580 and no team member has
> commented.
>
>> I think QA should make a clear statement if they are acting above a
>> projects
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2015, hasufell wrote:
> Has this been done in cooperation with the games team? If not, why?
The games team is in CC of bug 537580 and no team member has
commented.
> I think QA should make a clear statement if they are acting above a
> projects head and why they had to do s
Ulrich Mueller:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> In yesterday's meeting the QA team has unanimously accepted the
>> following policies (see bug 537580 for details):
>
>> 1. Directories /usr/games, /usr/games/bin, /usr/games/lib*,
>>/usr/share/games, /var/games, /etc/game
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In yesterday's meeting the QA team has unanimously accepted the
> following policies (see bug 537580 for details):
> 1. Directories /usr/games, /usr/games/bin, /usr/games/lib*,
>/usr/share/games, /var/games, /etc/games, and /opt must be owned
12 matches
Mail list logo
