Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le dimanche 19 mai 2013 à 17:00 -0700, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." a écrit : > On 5/19/13 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > Private messages and public comments through bugzilla are so far > > ignored, it seems, so let's try a venue where it's sure to cause a > > flamewar instead. My apologies for the i

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:40:27 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > Private messages and public comments through bugzilla are so far > ignored, it seems, so let's try a venue where it's sure to cause a > flamewar instead. My apologies for the inconvenience. Since you are the BW lead, I have followed your

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 5/20/13 5:10 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > That would explain why you're still filling gnome stabilization bugs > while we replied many times we don't want them in their current form ? If you're still getting bugs from my script it's a bug in my script, sorry about that. Could you post the

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > This is missing a reference URL or at least the ML thread subject; last > time I asked, I didn't got either and wasn't able to find this in a > reasonable amount of time. I find some irrelevant policy discussions > but nothing that indicates t

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:29:43PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > " stabilisation request" > This is missing a reference URL or at least the ML thread subject; last > time I asked, I didn't got either and wasn't able to find this in a > reasonable amount of time. I find some irrelevant policy di

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:09 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > Tend to agree, but rather than focusing on figuring out who messed > up/etc, let's just move forward. The link would be handy to refer to when we need to educate future people; but anyhow, someone else responded something relevant just now

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:00:49 + "Robin H. Johnson" wrote: > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/173889?do=post_view_threaded > The thread does mention that atoms should be first, as well. > It also makes sorting and viewing much easier (all related atoms are > together). Thanks.

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Duncan
Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:09 -0400 as excerpted: >> Severity and Priority on the Gentoo Bugzilla have always been weird to >> me; I would love to hear from someone who is actually using either of >> those to sort their bugs and using them happily, because the >> inconsistency a

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

2013-05-20 Thread Daniel Campbell
On 05/19/2013 01:05 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: >> J. Roeleveld wrote: >>> I don't see how this will avoid the issue of a limited amount of >>> inodes. >>> That is what I usually run out of before the disk is full when >>> storing lots of sm

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

2013-05-20 Thread Canek Peláez Valdés
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 05/19/2013 01:05 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: >>> J. Roeleveld wrote: I don't see how this will avoid the issue of a limited amount of inodes. That is what I usuall

[gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

2013-05-20 Thread Duncan
Daniel Campbell posted on Mon, 20 May 2013 22:03:02 -0500 as excerpted: > [100-200 systemd unit files is] missing the point. > If you don't run systemd, having unit files is > pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems > like a hack instead of something more robust. Why