FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-20-2009, 12:53 PM
Thomas Sachau
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On 12/15/2009 05:54 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> The next meeting will be on 18 January 2010 at 1900UTC. The date was
> pushed back 2 weeks for various reasons but the main one is to let our
> livers recover. Which prompts me to make the following public
> announcement: Happy holidays! )
>
> I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to prepare
> the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free to reply
> to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting reminder
> approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be sending a
> message about the two topics which did not make it last time and
> explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but well... you
> know...
>
> Denis.
>
>

I will make it short, since i already requested it 3 times, did create a thread at gentoo-dev ML:

agenda topic: Discussion and approval for following item:

Adding real multilib features from current multilib-portage to currently hardmasked and testing
portage-2.2* for wider testing, more eyes looking at it and hopefully more people helping improving
it, so we can get a version, which most can accept for PMS and maybe next EAPI.

--
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer
 
Old 12-20-2009, 01:49 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to prepare
> the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free to reply
> to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting reminder
> approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be sending a
> message about the two topics which did not make it last time and
> explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but well... you
> know...

I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of
-dev-announce and -dev. I'd propose to at least implement the following
behaviour such that I:
- don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times
- don't get lost where the mail is/was
- get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another
list

Proposed behaviour:
Aautomatically send all mail sent to -dev-announce to -dev.
Benefits:
- any reply-to hackery for -dev-announce to -dev unnecessary
- being subscrived to -dev alone is enough (alternatively -dev-announce
can be /dev/null-ed)
- threads are complete, instead of scattered over some lists
- multiple copies can be avoided
- cross-list posting can be reduced to a minimum


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 12-20-2009, 04:37 PM
Jeremy Olexa
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

Fabian Groffen wrote:

On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:

I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to prepare
the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free to reply
to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting reminder
approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be sending a
message about the two topics which did not make it last time and
explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but well... you
know...


I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of
-dev-announce and -dev. I'd propose to at least implement the following
behaviour such that I:
- don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times
- don't get lost where the mail is/was
- get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another
list

Proposed behaviour:
Aautomatically send all mail sent to -dev-announce to -dev.
Benefits:
- any reply-to hackery for -dev-announce to -dev unnecessary
- being subscrived to -dev alone is enough (alternatively -dev-announce
can be /dev/null-ed)
- threads are complete, instead of scattered over some lists
- multiple copies can be avoided
- cross-list posting can be reduced to a minimum




In general there are too many mail lists to even care about the
semantics of -dev-announce. Even this thread is being carried out on
-dev and -council. Well, that was the attempt, but no one that has
replied so far is on the -council list so the attempted thread on that
list is dead too.

-Jeremy
 
Old 12-20-2009, 07:01 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On Sunday 20 December 2009 09:49:09 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to prepare
> > the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free to reply
> > to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting reminder
> > approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be sending a
> > message about the two topics which did not make it last time and
> > explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but well... you
> > know...
>
> I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of
> -dev-announce and -dev. I'd propose to at least implement the following
> behaviour such that I:
> - don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times
> - don't get lost where the mail is/was
> - get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another
> list

get a sane mail client that automatically handles messages with duplicate ids
and references. cant say ive ever noticed a problem with kmail.
-mike
 
Old 12-20-2009, 07:04 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On 20-12-2009 15:01:30 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 20 December 2009 09:49:09 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > > I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to prepare
> > > the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free to reply
> > > to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting reminder
> > > approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be sending a
> > > message about the two topics which did not make it last time and
> > > explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but well... you
> > > know...
> >
> > I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of
> > -dev-announce and -dev. I'd propose to at least implement the following
> > behaviour such that I:
> > - don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times
> > - don't get lost where the mail is/was
> > - get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another
> > list
>
> get a sane mail client that automatically handles messages with duplicate ids
> and references. cant say ive ever noticed a problem with kmail.

and gmane or even archives.g.o?


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 12-21-2009, 02:16 AM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On Sunday 20 December 2009 15:04:12 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 20-12-2009 15:01:30 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 December 2009 09:49:09 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > > > I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to
> > > > prepare the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free
> > > > to reply to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting
> > > > reminder approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be
> > > > sending a message about the two topics which did not make it last
> > > > time and explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but
> > > > well... you know...
> > >
> > > I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of
> > > -dev-announce and -dev. I'd propose to at least implement the
> > > following behaviour such that I:
> > > - don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times
> > > - don't get lost where the mail is/was
> > > - get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another
> > > list
> >
> > get a sane mail client that automatically handles messages with duplicate
> > ids and references. cant say ive ever noticed a problem with kmail.
>
> and gmane or even archives.g.o?

gmane is f-ed up already irregardless of what we do. it eats cross-posted e-
mails for breakfast and doesnt tell anyone.

as for archives.g.o, file a bug if it isnt handling threading within a list
properly. i dont really see how your proposal here would break archives.g.o
anyways. someone sends an e-mail to both dev and dev-announce, it has the
same id. people respond and they all go to dev. either way, archives.g.o
should be seeing a sane thread on dev.
-mike
 
Old 12-21-2009, 06:54 AM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On 20-12-2009 22:16:30 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> gmane is f-ed up already irregardless of what we do. it eats cross-posted e-
> mails for breakfast and doesnt tell anyone.
>
> as for archives.g.o, file a bug if it isnt handling threading within a list
> properly. i dont really see how your proposal here would break archives.g.o
> anyways. someone sends an e-mail to both dev and dev-announce, it has the
> same id. people respond and they all go to dev. either way, archives.g.o
> should be seeing a sane thread on dev.

New devs are not announced to -dev, the mail is only sent to
-dev-announce. The "January 2010 meeting date" mail was only sent to
-dev-announce (and -council), not to -dev, hence replies (that have to
go to -dev) are replies with the original mail missing.

If all mail that would go to -dev-announce would guaranteed be sent to
-dev as well, I didn't have to check -dev-announce, and archives.g.o
would also have the original "January 2010 meeting date" mail in the
thread on -dev.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 12-21-2009, 10:30 AM
Richard Freeman
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On 12/21/2009 02:54 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:

If all mail that would go to -dev-announce would guaranteed be sent to
-dev as well, I didn't have to check -dev-announce, and archives.g.o
would also have the original "January 2010 meeting date" mail in the
thread on -dev.




Or you could just subscribe to both and add this to your procmailrc:

:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 8192 msgid.cache

:0 a:
.duplicates/new

Cross-posting in general tends to mess up threads, but there isn't much
that can be done about that unless we just ban it. However, most
cross-posts are honest attempts to try to move list discussion to a
place where it might better belong.


Honestly, list traffic is a lot better than it used to be, and I'm not
sure that this is really a big problem these days.
 
Old 12-21-2009, 11:22 AM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On 21-12-2009 06:30:23 -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/21/2009 02:54 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > If all mail that would go to -dev-announce would guaranteed be sent to
> > -dev as well, I didn't have to check -dev-announce, and archives.g.o
> > would also have the original "January 2010 meeting date" mail in the
> > thread on -dev.
>
> Or you could just subscribe to both and add this to your procmailrc:
>
> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
> | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
>
> :0 a:
> .duplicates/new

Does that fix archives.g.o? No.

> Cross-posting in general tends to mess up threads, but there isn't much
> that can be done about that unless we just ban it. However, most
> cross-posts are honest attempts to try to move list discussion to a
> place where it might better belong.

For commits I can imagine, but for this, it's just pointless.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 12-25-2009, 04:10 AM
Denis Dupeyron
 
Default January 2010 meeting date

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I will make it short, since i already requested it 3 times, did create a thread at gentoo-dev ML:
>
> agenda topic: Discussion and approval for following item:
>
> Adding real multilib features from current multilib-portage to currently hardmasked and testing
> portage-2.2* for wider testing, more eyes looking at it and hopefully more people helping improving
> it, so we can get a version, which most can accept for PMS and maybe next EAPI.

Sorry, I forgot to send an email explaining what happened on the
council alias as promised. The consensus was that the project wasn't
mature enough to go ahead. Also more generally the council's job isn't
discussing but deciding, approving, etc... Discussing is what should
happen on mailing lists. Before you can bring that to the council we
need to see an as-much-as-possible finalized solution with any of the
following if applicable: portage branch with an implementation that
people can try, documentation, PMS patch, devmanual patches, and a
team. By team I mean: who is going to maintain this in the long run if
necessary? A one man team is a dead team, it's only a matter of time.
If the amd64 team is going to be the one doing this job, and this is
just an example buy the way, then we need them to tell us they're OK
with it.

Now don't get me wrong. I love your project and the last thing I want
is to shoot it down. Look at what happened with prefix. They wanted
the council to approve it immediately or else... We didn't cede to
pressure and worked with them to make it good enough for approval.
Right now I don't hear anybody arguing about prefix going forward. And
that's exactly what I want for your project, i.e. helping you making
it better instead of it fading and failing in the (not so) long run.

I will stop now because I'm at a bus stop near Mount Fuji and I need
to go. I hope the other council members, especially the more
technically competent ones than me, will get back to you on this and
offer help and advice. As soon as I have a better internet connection
I will contact you about this.

Denis.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org