This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up a
Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2009, 21:00 -0500 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
> > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> > irc.freenode.net) !
> >
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:00:22 -0500
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > zmedico will provide an update on the progress of the
> > implementation. Short discussion of problems and implementation
> > decisions if needed.
>
> I'd say let's involve all the package manager maintainer groups. Each
> packager manag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.06.09 22:49, Mark Bateman wrote:
> ABSTRACT
> This GLEP details a possible enhancement to the GLEP process to aid
> the Gentoo
> council in voting on GLEPs as well Gentoo developers in the creation
> of GLEPs.
>
>
[snip]
Mark,
Sounds good
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Bash-4 in EAPI-3
> >
> > Goal: A request has been made to allow bash-4.0 features in
> > EAPI-3. Decide first whether or not to open the EAPI-3 feature
> > list at all.
> No. bash-4 has seen some regressions and some oddities. 2
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> EAPI 3: Short discussion of the progress
>
>
> zmedico will provide an update on the progress of the implementation. Short
> discussion of problems and implementation decisions if needed.
Guess that's a rather short topic. Nothing t
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:21:49 +0200
Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> And for EAPI development: I did dislike the google spreadsheet which
> has been used for EAPI-3 and don't think this has proved to be
> useful. If we do opt for any public collaboration development process
> (instead of say some file in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.06.10 22:21, Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
[snip]
> The main "problem" is that there is no deployment process for newer
> EAPIs specified right now. In the past we had something like "there
> must be two releases (stage sets) including a Portage ver
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Oh please no wiki.
Whatever. My requirements are quite simple: public accessible, no
accounts needed on 3rd party systems (like Google) to add feature
requests or comments and changes must be traceable. Using bugzilla fits
those criteria as well.
> The problem for EAPI 3
Roy Bamford wrote:
> What about the case where the new EAPI breaks backwards compatibility
> with existing package managers, as would be the case with glep 55?
>
> Its quite true that such changes can be introduced after a wait and
> only upset late adoptors. By implementing the key feature of g
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:37:33 +0200
Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> Putting in a wait for 4 or 8 weeks or whatever doesn't cost us
> anything but does simplify things and gives us a clear deployment
> process.
It loses us reasonably wide testing of Portage's implementation in
~arch. I'd rather not see
Tobias Scherbaum posted
1244672807.6190.35.ca...@homer.ob.libexec.de, excerpted below, on Thu, 11
Jun 2009 00:26:47 +0200:
>> * The Council votes for final approval, pending Portage implementation.
>
> Looks good so far.
>
>> * Portage implements it in ~arch. People start using it in ~arch.
>
Ciaran McCreesh posted
20090610234403.58bc6...@snowcone, excerpted below, on Wed, 10 Jun 2009
23:44:03 +0100:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:37:33 +0200
> Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
>> Putting in a wait for 4 or 8 weeks or whatever doesn't cost us anything
>> but does simplify things and gives us a clea
13 matches
Mail list logo
