Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:45:59
Message-Id: 4E9723A1.4080603@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild by "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn"
On 10/13/2011 06:09 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb: >> you're right. sorry. that came out too harsh. lets rephrase this as: > > No offense taken :) > >> "This /topic should be in the end-quiz, and mentioned in the mentoring >> guide to cover basis as part of the KEYWORDS visibility handling." > > This is something that I have been asking for all the time. If you think > that what qutecom did should be illegal in Gentoo, then disallow it in > policy or code.
Drop that "should be" act, please. It looks as if you were still suggesting it was fine to do what qutecom did... Merely saying if we had some documentation snippet, or an end-quiz question for this, QA could more easily/faster revoke access if someone were to do this intentionally in tree. This could be minor motivation for me to write such snippet, but it's definately not near top on my TODO.

Replies