28.2.2006, 19:39:15, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> ewarn "This ebuild overrides the default SLOT behaviour for
>> webapps" ewarn "If this package installs files into the htdocs dir, this
>> is" ewarn "probably a bug in the ebuild."
>>
>> Sigh... what kind of QA issue is that?
> which part dont you
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:27:01 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once again, don't invent problems, please.
Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean it's not there.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why didn't you point out
| to an obvious eclass flaw about 30 emails and many hours ago, saving
us from
| all the eclass formating, s
>> which part dont you understand ? the user sets a variable and then is told
>> that the package probably contains a bug ... seems pretty confusing to me
>> -mike
>
> rl03 already replied to that. I don't see any QA issues there, and if
> someone from QA team does, then he probably has too much
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
> > broken.
>
> Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you
> use the web
28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
>> > broken.
>>
>> Which it _probably_ is. See, this is
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:09:02 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
|
| > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
| > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
|
| >
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 20:18 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:47:33 -0500
> solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
> > and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
> > that
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:10, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probab
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
> subject
> considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it into a
> proper QA chec
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> > they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
> > subject
> >
> > considering the nature of the w
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
> files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out
which QA issues are important and which are l
On 2/28/06, Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
> > files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
>
> I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:50:40 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| > today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when
| > a user files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
|
| I don't think that's the lesson. It o
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
>>28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>>whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
>>>they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
>>>subject
>>>
>>>consi
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> eh, see, from what I can tell you are just deciding to make it complicated.
How is having a process for resolving disagreements complicating things? I
should be able to escalate a conflict (differing opinions on whether something
is a
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:57:05PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:50:40 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | > today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when
> | > a user fil
Renat Lumpau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
>> files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
>
> I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out
> which QA issues
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:14:33PM -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I think
> it's fair to say that these QA checks will find problems ranging from
> not-awful-but-annoying to could-break-your-system, but they are all bugs
> that ought to be fixed eventually. Now, if you're currently working on
> fi
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA
> team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead
> follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to
> -dev asking for comm
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:34 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| ("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal
| of mkdir in global scope")
Eek no. Have you any idea what happens when someone shoves an mkdir in
global scope? That one is most definitely on the lis
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:58, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >>28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> >>>they should be able to without havin
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 22:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:34 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | ("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal
> | of mkdir in global scope")
>
> Eek no. Have you any idea what happens when someone s
Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes. Here's a quote from Halcy0n (with his permission):
>
> Don't mistake me not getting involved for approval. I am just not going to
> get involved in every single dev->dev disagreement, and certainly not when I
> do not have all of the facts. I w
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA
> > team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead
> > follow the same rules as new global USE flags
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:34:32PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Yes. Here's a quote from Halcy0n (with his permission):
> >
> > Don't mistake me not getting involved for approval. I am just not going
> > to
> > get involved in every single dev->dev d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Lauer skrev:
> Hi all,
>
> at FOSDEM we had a nice discussion about languages, translations etc.
> Having people from the US (wolf31o2) who never have problems and people
> from Japan (usata) who always have problems with encodings /
> charset
Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So you're saying it's ok to have one team member who steps out of line and
> cannot be managed? Are all teams allowed that exception?
Did you read what I said? I talked to him and told him what I expect.
I'm telling you to not expect him to change, not th
Mark Loeser wrote:
> I don't think you will find one person that is going to say they are
> capable of changing how Ciaran interacts with people. This is an
> entirely different issue though, and I have talked to Ciaran about it.
> What I was saying above is that I am not going to go and get invo
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
| problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please
| comment on bug #114944. (this bug is only open to Gentoo developers).
| Its better if you say it
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
> | problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please
> | comment on bug #114944. (th
Lance Albertson wrote:
> I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
> problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please comment
> on bug #114944. (this bug is only open to Gentoo developers). Its better
> if you say it yourself in this bug rather than letting other people
1.3.2006, 1:40:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
>> | problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitu
28.2.2006, 16:31:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
| >> Getting a complete list is something
28.2.2006, 16:29:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >> wrote:
| >> | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild p
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
