-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Well, we would hope that people using the package would file a
bug, but
> this obviously doesn't always happen.
A little request here: Please don't mass-file bugs with a single
sentence like "It works, please stabilise.". At
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
>>> 1) thousands of packages will never be marked stable
>> Honestly, they shouldn't be stable.
>
> hmm, maybe we should have different groups of ports (*1) for
>
> a) quite stable: no bugs yet and enough votes)
> b) *proven* to be stable: has passed the whole bunch
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 22:20 +0200, Matthias Bethke wrote:
> no reply, opened a bug (#140242) some two weeks ago---still nothing.
Everything prior to this was unlikely to get a response. As for the
bug, two weeks is barely infancy for some bugs.
> Seems I'm not following some arcane protocol. I m
Richard Fish wrote:
On 7/27/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The "majority" of packages are also the ones that need more extensive
testing. Sure, we could probably stabilize a bunch of the fringe
packages that hardly anyone uses and it wouldn't affect anything.
The majority
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:09 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's actually how I read the first email, was that it's really
> > the majority of the _minor_ packages that get completely neglected,
> > and just sits in the tree for months or years marked unstable
> > becaus
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> (stuff)
"Me too!"
Seriously, you nailed it on the head. How many times have you had this
conversation:
u: "Why is it taking so *!#$!@ long to get KDE/Gnome/XFCE stabilized?!
Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu got it a whole week ago! OMG!!1!"
d: "It'll be stabilized once it's a
Hi Chris,
on Friday, 2006-07-28 at 09:41:09, you wrote:
> Well, we would hope that people using the package would file a bug, but
> this obviously doesn't always happen.
Even if it happens that doesn't mean anything is gonna change :)
I'd like to get involved and help out with stuff like this but
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 22:55 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > But, nobody likes doing the small stuff, and I can't blame them.
>
> I understand. I do not expect that these packages will have same
> attention by developers as major ones. I would understand if
> stabilisat
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:11 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 7/27/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please don't interpret my original message as a complaint. It isn't.
> It is mostly a question of the process. My understanding of
> stabilization bugs was that they should be the ex
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 09:24 -0600, Steve Dibb wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >> I'd say no bugs, 30 days, passes internal tests, being run by users =>
> >> stablise, for the majority of packages (obviously, there may be some
> >> exceptions...).
> >>
> >
> > Luckily, you're not making the
(I subscribed to -dev only a while ago so I can use only this message
to reply. So take this as more general reply. I used quotes from other
mails also. Hopefully it is not too confusing.)
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:11:33 -0700 Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/27/06, Chris Gianelloni <
On 7/27/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honestly, they shouldn't be stable. In fact, likely, many shouldn't be
in the tree. We have way too many packages that are used solely by a
small group of people sitting around the tree. These would be better
served in official overlays,
* Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> That's actually how I read the first email, was that it's really the
> majority of the _minor_ packages that get completely neglected, and
> just sits in the tree for months or years marked unstable because
> nobody cares.
then the users probably
* Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > 1) thousands of packages will never be marked stable
>
> Honestly, they shouldn't be stable.
hmm, maybe we should have different groups of ports (*1) for
a) quite stable: no bugs yet and enough votes)
b) *proven* to be stable: has passed
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I'd say no bugs, 30 days, passes internal tests, being run by users =>
stablise, for the majority of packages (obviously, there may be some
exceptions...).
Luckily, you're not making the call. ;]
The "majority" of packages are also the ones that need more extensiv
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 10:34 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Maybe this semi-automatic stabilisation by default could be adopted by
> the tree cleaners project?
I propose that we remove the name "project" from any "team" that really
consists of only one or two people. I think part of the problem is
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 10:00 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> I would also like to see that (though maybe with some automated
> feedback from users systems as to which packages are installed / how
> often they are run). All that the current process ensures is that:
Any automated system will cause s
On 2006.07.27 10:00, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 27/07/06, Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
As a better system I would like to see packages stable automatically
after 30 days and no bugs. But this is probably not going to happen
with gentoo so I just stay away from stable
On 27/07/06, Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem is in the system. Unless you are a developer _and_ part of the
arch team you cannot do anything but file a bug and wait and wait and wait
until a member of the arch team decides to test the package again for his
own and mark it
Richard Fish wrote:
> On 7/2/06, Daniel Ahlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is an automatically created email message.
>> http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 15968
>> ebuilds.
>
> A question [1] has come up on -user about why some ebuilds take so
> long to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:44:49 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 10 April 2006 04:19, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > On Monday 10 April 2006 05:26, Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
> > >> * if ebuild has $PN in SRC_URI (cosmet
On Monday 10 April 2006 04:19, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > On Monday 10 April 2006 05:26, Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
> >> * if ebuild has $PN in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
> >
> > Why is this one bad? It creates some flexibility, and has the name of the
Because you can't cut-n-paste the url when editing the ebuild.
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Monday 10 April 2006 05:26, Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
* if ebuild has $PN in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
Why is this one bad? It creates some fl
Andrej Kacian wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:39:43 -0600
> R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> * if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
>> Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
>> under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:39:43 -0600
R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
>
> Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
> under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of the packages
> in this li
R Hill wrote:
> Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
>
>
>>* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
>
>
> Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
> under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of the packages in
> this list so I'm interested in k
Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
> * if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of the packages in
this list so I'm interested in knowing what's worth fixing and w
Anthony Gorecki posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:09:34 -0700:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2005 20:42, Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
>> The page shows results from a number of tests that are run against the
> ebuilds.
>
> Why does this script no longer include the result
28 matches
Mail list logo
