| 1 |
On 09/27/2017 09:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> W dniu wto, 26.09.2017 o godzinie 20∶58 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny |
| 3 |
> napisał: |
| 4 |
>> W dniu pon, 25.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶08 +0200, użytkownik Andreas K. |
| 5 |
>> Huettel napisał: |
| 6 |
>>> Dear all, |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> the next council meeting will be 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC in the |
| 9 |
>>> #gentoo-council channel on freenode. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to discuss |
| 12 |
>>> or vote on. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> The agenda will be sent out in a week. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> So, in order: |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> [...] |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 3. Also, if time permits we may take a look at the git pre-GLEP [3]. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
We can always look at it, but I don't necessarily believe it is ready |
| 25 |
for a vote at this point, I seem to recall the last email discussion on |
| 26 |
it ending without conclusion, so I'd suggest picking up on an email |
| 27 |
thread discussing it and trying to separate out a few explicit |
| 28 |
discussion points to have a better thread model. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Some questions that immediately springs to mind re-reading this is |
| 31 |
(1) Is this an authoritative standard or a suggestion? if it is only a |
| 32 |
suggestion does it belong in devmanual or git workflow on wiki rather |
| 33 |
than in a GLEP to begin with? if it is authoritative, is it properly |
| 34 |
well defined? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
(2)(a) Should Bug be a generic indicator for bug information, including |
| 37 |
upstream bugs, or; (b) do we want to separate upstream / other |
| 38 |
information in e.g a References: field that can be used for other bugs |
| 39 |
and descriptions (including security advisories etc). If so (c) is there |
| 40 |
a benefit in using a full URI for Bug; or should this be reduced to only |
| 41 |
the number, (d) How should multiple bugs be added, is this a comma or |
| 42 |
space separated list, or multiple Bug listings with single bug number? |
| 43 |
(I, personally, prefer the latter as it removes parsing semantics |
| 44 |
regarding potential linebreaks and max widths, so multiple Bug is likely |
| 45 |
needed anyways, so simplifying it to only one number seems like a good |
| 46 |
thing) |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
For the other tags it seems like it is starting to start to be |
| 49 |
consistent now, in particular with regards to earlier overloading of |
| 50 |
same names for multiple purposes (e.g fixes), so thanks for that. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I'll have to review it more carefully when having some Gentoo time at home. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 56 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 57 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives