1 |
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 06/27/2011 05:55 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
3 |
>> On 06/27/2011 05:58 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
4 |
>>> We use 2.0.6.916 on official releng releases. |
5 |
>>> I tried 9999 on my private tests because [..] |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> To me that leaves the question who uses 9999 for serious stuff at all. |
8 |
>> In case it's no one (which we should find out) we could trash that |
9 |
>> branch and fully concentrate on calalyst_2. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> I guess that sounds a bit radical at first. It doesn't have to be a |
12 |
>> quick decision. Also, version control allows us to bring it back if needed. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Ideas on find out who is using 9999: |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> - Removing 9999 ebuild from the tree and see who's complaining |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> - Resetting branch master to nothing but a README announcing |
19 |
>> the possible death of that thread and a request to join |
20 |
>> this mailing list and speak up about it if there is need. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> - Asking on one/some/all of gentoo-dev, gentoo-user, gentoo forums, |
23 |
>> planet gentoo. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> After such action I imagine a time window of 2 to 4 weeks to give people |
26 |
>> a chance to react. |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> What do you think? |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> |
31 |
>>> I can confirm that the build with the master branch fails as it doesn't |
32 |
>>> seem able to find the spec files or doesn't accept them - the official |
33 |
>>> ones we use to build weekly releases. |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> That seems to further decrease the chance that someone is using 9999 for |
36 |
>> real to me. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> One week has passed by. Anyone? |
39 |
|
40 |
I'm perfectly fine with the change, especially after the graphviz |
41 |
dependency of asciidoc was made optional. |
42 |
|
43 |
Matt |