| 1 |
On Monday 30 July 2001 23:30, you wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 10:26:25PM +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Dan Armak <danarmak@g.o> writes: |
| 4 |
> > > I wouldn't mind handling the mailing-list side of the story - grabbing |
| 5 |
> > > all ebuilds and putting them wherever and informing whoever. But many |
| 6 |
> > > ebuilds come through for packages I don't use and in many cases can't |
| 7 |
> > > test. I don't think any one developer could or should handle the |
| 8 |
> > > testing, that's why we have teams. We can have an "incoming" ebuild |
| 9 |
> > > tree (in cvs or elsewhere) and developers could grab ebuilds that fall |
| 10 |
> > > under their area of interest, test them and put them either in the |
| 11 |
> > > stable or unstable cvs trees. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I also think this is the way of doing it. Perhaps, when you find an |
| 14 |
> > ebuild in the mailinglist you can commit it to some place in cvs and |
| 15 |
> > add a wiki todo about it giving it to the correct team. This way it |
| 16 |
> > will be easy to track what "your" team has to test. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Good idea. Dan, go ahead and create and add a /usr/portage/incoming |
| 19 |
> directory to CVS and check all new ebuilds in there. Then, post a wiki |
| 20 |
> item for each new ebuild (or batch of related ebuilds) and assign the wiki |
| 21 |
> item to the appropriate team, priority "low". Thanks for doing this. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
OK. Should I classify the ebuilds as well and have e.g. |
| 24 |
/usr/portage/incoming/app-text? |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Dan Armak |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team |
| 29 |
Matan, Israel |
Archives