On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:48:38AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old
> > > versions sink all your time really stops progress to a dead halt.
> > >
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/05/2014 09:50 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:50:07 -0500 Rich Freeman
> wrote:
>
>> So, I realize I'm repeating myself, but the purpose of the
>> mailing list isn't to keep reposting the same arguments back and
>> forth until ev
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 19:04:56 -0800
Tyler Pohl wrote:
> why cant there be a second repository for all old source, ebuilds, and
> patches and the stable and testing repository can be rolling like it
> already is. slower archs can then sync the old repository and the
> new one.
There is one in plac
why cant there be a second repository for all old source, ebuilds, and
patches and the stable and testing repository can be rolling like it
already is. slower archs can then sync the old repository and the new one.
On Feb 5, 2014 5:54 PM, "Tom Wijsman" wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:00:41 -0500
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 03:12:54 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> > > Why is this pure and utter bullshit?
> >
> > Because I'm attempting to have a discussion with a brick wall.
>
> I hit that problem immediately in another sub-thread
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:50:07 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> So, I realize I'm repeating myself, but the purpose of the mailing
> list isn't to keep reposting the same arguments back and forth until
> everybody agrees. Post your argument once, and once it gets dull by
> all means appeal to QA/council
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> > Why is this pure and utter bullshit?
>
> Because I'm attempting to have a discussion with a brick wall.
I hit that problem immediately in another sub-thread. Are we on to
something here?
Regards,
jer
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:00:41 -0500
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
> > Can this be proven? Why are maintainers like WilliamH upset about
> > this?
> >
> > Reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90063
>
> I've already voiced my concern on his bug:
> https://bugs.gentoo.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 07:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies
>>
> That policy doesn't permit removal of keywords/ebuilds without following
> gentoo standard policy, standard policy
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:03:09 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:50:57 +0100
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0600
> > Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> > > There is more to it than that. Normally discussions can be good,
> > > but when you try to talk to a bric
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/05/2014 07:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old
>>> versions sink all your time really stops progress to a
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
> >
> > Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old
> > versions sink all your time really stops progress to a dead halt.
> >
>
> Your logic isn't flawed here, it's entirely missing. If version Y is
> s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/05/2014 04:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
>> Against my better judgment...
>>
>> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
>>> Stee
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:50:57 +0100
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> > There is more to it than that. Normally discussions can be good,
> > but when you try to talk to a brick wall, it's absolutely pointless.
>
> QA team's decisions require mor
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> There is more to it than that. Normally discussions can be good, but
> when you try to talk to a brick wall, it's absolutely pointless.
QA team's decisions require more than a flip of a dime; it takes a
little more involvement, as w
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Against my better judgment...
>
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
> > Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:55:59 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:58 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is
> > insufficient?
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/chart.cgi?category=-All-&datefrom=&dateto=&label0=All%20Open&line0
I'm firmly with Steev and Matt in this thread as well as in at least
a few others where Tom has participated intensely.
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Thanks for putting up with it, but it's a huge waste of your time.
>
> Why?
Because you seem to have a completely different mindset than
everybody else,
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:58 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is insufficient?
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/chart.cgi?category=-All-&datefrom=&dateto=&label0=All%20Open&line0=320&name=320&subcategory=-All-&action=wrap
>
> PS: As a bonus, here's a n
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:52 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> >
> > You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. Keeping it around for
> > "slower" arches does NOT block progress. I have intimate knowledge with
> > what ACTUALLY happens
Against my better judgment...
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
> > > Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:58:59 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:41:58 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>
> > Cause it seems that not everybody agrees with policy that we are
> > trying to make.
>
> Because it's impossible to create a simple policy to solve complex
> problems.
Why
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:41:58 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> Maybe we should change our sentence about dropping last stable
> keywords for slow arches ONLY if version, still marked stable for
> them is seriously broken?
What does "seriously broken" mean? Maintainers will see that different;
besides
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:41:58 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> Cause it seems that not everybody agrees with policy that we are
> trying to make.
Because it's impossible to create a simple policy to solve complex
problems. It's a waste of time and it's going to break more than you
set out to fix.
Use
05.02.2014 09:41, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:28:28 -0800
> Matt Turner wrote:
>
>> I've drafted and thrown away so many replies to Tom in this thread.
>
> What do you want to tell us about this thread?
>
>> Thanks for putting up with it, but it's a huge waste of your time.
>
>
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. Keeping it around for
> "slower" arches does NOT block progress. I have intimate knowledge with
> what ACTUALLY happens when people pull this bullshit - and that is a
> system that I c
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:28:28 -0800
Matt Turner wrote:
> I've drafted and thrown away so many replies to Tom in this thread.
What do you want to tell us about this thread?
> Thanks for putting up with it, but it's a huge waste of your time.
Why? This discussion has a goal which we are trying to
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
> > Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> >
> > > Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having
> > > something working we should
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
>> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>>
>> > Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having
>> > something working we should just remov
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> > Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having
> > something working we should just remove ebuilds of working packages.
>
> s/should/could/ s/ebuilds/sta
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having
> something working we should just remove ebuilds of working packages.
s/should/could/ s/ebuilds/stable keyword or last stable version/
It is at the maintainer's discr
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:07 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:23:28 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >
> > > "The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
> > > which are not worth trying to tes
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:23:28 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > "The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
> > which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs." [1]
> >
> > You can keep rehashing about "win
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> "The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
> which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs." [1]
>
> You can keep rehashing about "winning", but all it does is break policy.
>
> [1]: http://devmanual.gentoo.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:03:20 +
"Steven J. Long" wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > They are less work; since it lets the slower arches move their work
> > to bugs of important packages that need their attention, instead of
> > bugs of non-important packages were the stabilization isn't really
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> "Steven J. Long" wrote:
>
> > Closing those bugs as WONTFIX is more work, and in some cases the bugs
> > would be justified, if the user is on the slow arch in question.
>
> They are less work; since it lets the slower arches move their work to
> bugs of important packages th
36 matches
Mail list logo
