Richard Brown wrote:
Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
policy document we do need to dissect every word.
I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law to
a certain extend, and it works j
Hi.
Wernfried Haas wrote:
[snip]
> Please define access. Does that mean they get to ban people from the
> forums and all #gentoo-* channels? Do they get mod/op powers or just
> request it from the respective forum moderators / channel operators
> (who _have_ to follow their orders)?
>
>
[snip]
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote: [Tue Mar 13 2007, 06:05:10PM CDT]
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
>> > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", pl
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:28:45
-0100:
> As amne asked before, will the proctors have overruling power over
> moderators for existing channels? If so, is the council suggesting that
> the proctors / devrel /
Hi.
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> Hiya all,
>
> As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
> given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
> Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
> proposal can be found at http://dev.gento
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this
extend
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Richard Brown wrote:
>> Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
>> policy document we do need to dissect every word.
>
> I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
> flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law
> to
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vic
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
"Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
> it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
I think his intention was
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
> it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
My opinion is that screwing
Underlying the draft code of conduct is an assumption that aggressive
and less-than-nice behavior on gentoo-dev is seriously harming Gentoo.
On the other hand, LKML is famous for its flamewars, and nobody claims
that Linux is in serious trouble. Does anybody have a good feeling for
where the diffe
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: [Wed Mar 14 2007, 10:02:47AM CDT]
> In my view, there's one important penalty missing from this code of
> conduct. Actually, the most important penalty - as a last measure, all
> input from a person to the project will be denied. What I mean is that
> for worst off
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:59:01 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Does anybody have a good feeling for where the difference lies?
The difference is that, by and large, the people working on the Linux
kernel are honest and prepared to admit what their problems are.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
RFC on script
Hi I'd like some feedback from devs as to the potentially negative
implications of a script I have written to wrap emerge (groan!) It's linked
here: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-546828.html
- and here is sample output from a gcc build: http://phpfi.com/214168
I'm particula
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
>
> Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
> refusing to accept updates to their previo
On Thursday 15 March 2007 00:59, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Underlying the draft code of conduct is an assumption that aggressive
> and less-than-nice behavior on gentoo-dev is seriously harming Gentoo.
> On the other hand, LKML is famous for its flamewars, and nobody claims
> that Linux is in serious
Steve Long wrote:
I wonder if the CoC should also mention such things (remember also
Enrico Weigelt's mails) as unacceptable behaviour. Or is it already
covered by one of the descriptions although I don't see it?
--
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if the CoC should also mention such things (remember also
> Enrico Weigelt's mails) as unacceptable behaviour. Or is it already
> covered by one of the descriptions although I don't see it?
> --
> Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
> Gentoo/Java
Ass
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 13:06:13 Stephen Bennett wrote:
...
> I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible,
> at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and
> which he did fairly well.
Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausibl
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it.
Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro.
V-Li
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatu
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it.
>>
>
> Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
> on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying dist
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:29:38 -0500 Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And something good is coming from it too.
Implementing policy based upon tabloid rantings is hardly 'something
good'...
If someone were to publish an article saying "Embedded and arch support
is killing Gentoo by forcing all the
On 14/03/07, Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it.
Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0300
Mauricio Lima Pilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible,
> which it isn't IMO.
And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we
can't use the linux kernel or bash?
--
gentoo-dev@ge
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If someone were to publish an article saying "Embedded and arch
> support is killing Gentoo by forcing all the development effort into
> supporting minority platforms rather than those of interest to the
> majority of users", would Gentoo immediately institut
I joined this list mostly to talk about the proposed code of conduct.
Let me state the context up front:
1. Some of you know I am a loyal Gentoo user. I run three
"testing-level" (pure ~x86 with an occasional local package mask when
something croaks) systems, I beta-test stuff I'm interested i
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Underlying the draft code of conduct is an assumption that aggressive
> and less-than-nice behavior on gentoo-dev is seriously harming Gentoo.
Well you've recently lost two very capable devs as a result of it, and I
understand others have left for similar reasons, so i'd sa
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 19:10:06 +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > If someone were to publish an article saying "Embedded and arch
> > support is killing Gentoo by forcing all the development effort into
> > supporting minority platforms rather than t
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:04:25 + Steve Long
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Underlying the draft code of conduct is an assumption that
> > aggressive and less-than-nice behavior on gentoo-dev is seriously
> > harming Gentoo.
>
> Well you've recently lost two very capable d
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:01:49 Stephen Bennett wrote:
> And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we
> can't use the linux kernel or bash?
We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source
projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 18:24:58 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
Am Mittwoch 14 März 2007 19:18 schrieb Mauricio Lima Pilla:
> We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source
> projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA. We can be selective
> and not accept code directly submitted by such users, which would clearly
> state tha
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
> on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro.
Who cares about views? It is our distro and we just like to make it
b
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else
>> could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a
>> group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others
>> have informed us all.
>
> Case in point: you need to distin
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro.
Who cares about views? It is our distro
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:29:38 -0500
Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And something good is coming from it too. They are setting up rules
> so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.
I believe the move towards creating the CoC was in the pipeline before
these outside events took place; it w
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be
> interested to know what you think our real problems are.
Not a complete list, but probably a good starting point:
* Portage. Gentoo hasn't delivered any
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of
> > it.
>
> Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
> on Gentoo even mo
I am replying to this email on the coc because I am pretty much coming
from the same place as a user. I haven't been that involved with the
community but I have been a user since 2002. I am a developer.
It's funny, because I was considering getting more involved with
development with Gentoo beca
Perhaps they're more
interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals...
or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down from a
few years ago we were
7 in '04
9 '05
10 '06
11-12 '07
right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying negative
things.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 20:56:51 +0100, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> > Perhaps they're more
> >interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals...
>
>
> or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down from a
> few years ago we were
> 7 in '04
> 9 '05
> 10 '06
> 11-12 '
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 20:56:51 +0100, Caleb Cushing wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps they're more
>>> interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals...
>>
>> or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down from a
>> few years ago we were
>> 7 in '
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:47:16 -0500
Larry Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So maybe I will stick around and maybe I will find a niche to help out
> with that I can feel passionately enough to start a flame war.
Yes please, by all means, do that (the helping out part, not the flame war
part :) ).
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be
interested to know what you think our real problems are.
Not a complete list, but probably a good starting point:
* Porta
On 14/03/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be
>> interested to know what you think our real problems are.
Larry Lines wrote:
I learned Linux by
installing and hacking and suffering over Gentoo. Exactly one year
after installing Gentoo, I was in Hong Kong building and programming for
a Linux cluster. There is no other distribution that compresses the
learning curve like that. I still can't figure o
games-rpg has been masked on 18 jul 2006 and there is a pending bug
#167547 Broken dependancies in "games-rpg/planeshift-0.3.011"
Removing is planned for this end of week: 17 Mar 2007.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 21:31, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> 1. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing that absolutely positively
> should have happened now but hasn't is some scheme where you have
> something like Red Hat/Fedora's "green checkmark/red bang" indicator on
> your desk, indicatin
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0700 "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing that absolutely positively
> should have happened now but hasn't is some scheme where you have
> something like Red Hat/Fedora's "green checkmark/red bang" indicator
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 18:18 +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it.
>
> Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
> on Gentoo even more. From many comments I
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it.
Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro.
V-Li
[Oh no! How did I let myself get sucked into a gentoo-dev thread? ;-)]
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 13:31 -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
[...]
> I'll just throw out a couple of my own comments:
>
[ I'm skipping the first one because it doesn't interest me]
[Comment about Gentoo's non-participati
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> * Portage. Gentoo hasn't delivered anything useful or cool for two
> years or so. Things like layman are merely workarounds for severe
> Portage limitations (not a criticism of layman). Delivery to end users
> is based around what's possible with Portage, not what people
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
>>
>
> Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
> refusing to accept updates to
Last rites for dev-java/oscore and oscore-bin
Last upstream release July 2005. Still generation 1 java package and
will be moved to junkyard overlay. No maintainer and not sure anyone
managing herd cares to maintain.
It's been p.masked and in 30 days (once overlay is created) it will be
removed
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
>
> "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
> > it's a
quoth the Albert Hopkins:
> [Comment about Gentoo's non-participation in LSB]
>
> While I somewhat agree, I think Gentoo's main selling point (at least
> for me) is that is the way it stands out from your typical Linux distro.
> It's source-based package system was once what distinguished it from
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All
> contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid
> contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the
> future
"Caleb Cushing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying
> negative things. funny sabayon a gentoo fork and overlay is in 8. I
> know these statistics aren't 100% accurate (given how they're
> generated) but maybe they mean something.
Maybe part
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
> >
> > "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be
> >
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by
> a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new
> contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility.
Perhaps not impl
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All
> > contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid
> > contr
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but I'd be
please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it is in some way
FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps are there to be talked to
about such things.
> * The wrong idea of w
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>at do you think users will say when told that their system will
> remain vulnerable to a remote root hole because Gentoo won't accept a
> fix from a particular person? Do you think they'll smile, nod and
> accept that their system is about t
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use
> packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal
> dislikes?
>
It should not be personal dislikes. Such a strong position should be well
considered by the on
Hello Alec
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:41:10PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > 11:16:24 <@genstef> hansmi: bah fix your qa stuff yourself if you think
> > I am wrong. I wont do something I dont agree with
> I would like to also point out that your quoted irc snippet is very weak
> as there is no exp
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else
could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a
group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others
have informed us all.
Case in point: you need to distinguish betwee
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but
> I'd be please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it
> is in some way FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps are
> there to be talked to ab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Caleb Cushing schrieb:
> right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying negative
> things. funny sabayon a gentoo fork and overlay is in 8. I know these
> statistics aren't 100% accurate (given how they're generated) but maybe
> they
Caleb Cushing wrote:
Perhaps they're more
interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals...
or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down
from a few years ago we were
7 in '04
9 '05
10 '06
11-12 '07
Yeah, the good old days when Gentoo was the
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> That's the exact opposite of my reading. The so-called mess in the
> last couple of weeks is nothing so unusual - happens every few months
> or so, and IMO it's more about steam venting than the specific
> issues at hand at the time. Responding
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> All that we'd find out is the kind of user that actively follows
> requests for information and responds to them. Gentoo currently doesn't
> have a way of interacting with all the other users out there...
Of course you would only find out about the user that responds to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:30:32 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> >> Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else
> >> could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (
Hi all,
I've been voicing my concern repeatedly on irc, and I believe that it
would probably be more effective here.
I believe that the solution of adopting a Code of Conduct, especially in
this rushed way, will ultimately hurt us, and that the disadvantages far
outweight the benefits.
Our argu
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:41:10 -0700 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Portage is being incrementally improved. I'm not trying to rag on the
> former or the current portage crew; certainly it moves slowly. Much
> of it needs rewriting; my preference is to have more tests so that
> when stuff
During discussing the current CoC Draft, i decided to write down a
slightly different version, that solves some problems with conflicts
of interest and redundancy between different teams - well at least
according to me. ;-)
Anyway, here it is, and open to comments (which i may not be able to
integ
The part about goats kind of scares me :-)
On 3/14/07, Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
During discussing the current CoC Draft, i decided to write down a
slightly different version, that solves some problems with conflicts
of interest and redundancy between different teams - well at l
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but
>> I'd be please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it
>> is in some way FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps ar
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:20:37 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong,
> >> but I'd be please if in general such things could be done
>
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> I'm sorry to have been so long (and I have a lot more to say!) but this
> is more or less why I think both the idea and its proposed
> implementation are bad and will ultimately hurt us.
I do agree and I add that this current thread so far is a good example
on how things
Ferris McCormick wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:30:32 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else
could he say he'd gone thru the appropri
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:35:14 +
George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you'd rather let one of the best employees go rather than chastise
> a worker who is leaving soon? Thats just cutting off your nose to
> spite your face.
I'd rather make it known that that sort of backhanded tactics
Luca Barbato wrote:
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
I'm sorry to have been so long (and I have a lot more to say!) but this
is more or less why I think both the idea and its proposed
implementation are bad and will ultimately hurt us.
I do agree and I add that this current thread so far is a g
I have no idea if it's possible but if a topic is deemed to be off topic
then can any further replies with that subject be forwarded
automatically to another address like gentoo-dev-offtopic so they dont
go to gentoo-dev?
I believe you can change the destination based on subject with an mta. th
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
That's just it. Portage needs to deliver major visible improvements at
the user level for Gentoo to get anywhere. Managing a Gentoo system is
much harder now than it was a few years ago, but the tools are largely
the same.
What on earth is going to be a "major visible im
What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a command
line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is going to
realise? The average user probably only uses a few commands: emerge
-u/p/a/v/--sync/package/world/system and then use
package.keywords/mask/unmask so there ar
Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:35:14 +
George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you'd rather let one of the best employees go rather than chastise
a worker who is leaving soon? Thats just cutting off your nose to
spite your face.
I'd rather make it known that tha
Tupone Alfredo schrieb:
> games-rpg has been masked on 18 jul 2006 and there is a pending bug
> #167547 Broken dependancies in "games-rpg/planeshift-0.3.011"
> Removing is planned for this end of week: 17 Mar 2007.
>
0.3.011 is wy t old and not compatible with current server versions.
BUT
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:52 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a
> command line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is
> going to realise? The average user probably only uses a few commands:
> emerge -u/p/a/
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:30:11 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I'd rather make it known that that sort of backhanded tactics to
> > get rid of someone you don't like won't work whoever uses them.
> >
> You would certainly make that point. then let the other employee
> leave and
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are
> actively maintained.
I usually ask before messing with other's stuff but if I find something
wrong I rather fix it myself while I'm at it (and I'm quite happy if
people does the same for my stuff).
in t
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:45:01 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are
> > actively maintained.
>
> I usually ask before messing with other's stuff but if I find
> something wrong I rather fix it m
On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:45:01 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are
> > actively maintained.
>
> I usually ask before messing with other's
Who cares about views? It is our distro and we just like to make it
better. Right?
There is a plethora of potential Gentoo developers out there and this
sort of press does nothing for getting them any closer to joining the
effort.
Secondly, regarding the DW article, surely if it was as
From your draft:
(note: most parts shamelessly stolen from Christel)
In that case, showing only what differs from Christel's proposal would
have been a better way to present yours.
Denis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
95 matches
Mail list logo
