Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote:
> | Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved
> | concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases.
> 
> Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual was that it would be
> possible for the right people to update it to codify existing practice
> without arguments from the peanut gallery who like to claim that
> because they've been getting away with it it's allowed. See also
> conflicting USE flags and static metadata requirement... This isn't a
> change, it's a documentation of how things are.

You still didn't bring in any argument, why am I not surprised? Plus
don't pull in unrelated stuff into this debate. Plus getting devmanual
changed on the fly and using it as a point in discussion five minutes
later is not an acceptable practice for anyone who wants to debate
things seriously.

> You've already wasted too much of other people's time on this. You're
> not getting any more of mine.

Please, take this, your peanut galleries and other junk off-list,
noone's interested.

Thanks.

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@g.o
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)