Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:17:59
Message-Id: 4EDB80F8.1090800@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13 by Fabian Groffen
Fabian Groffen schrieb:
> All, > > Apologies for the short notice in advance. > > In a little more than one week, the council will meet again. This is > the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the > agenda to vote on. > > Please respond to this email with agenda items. Please do not hestitate > to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously > suggested one (since the last meeting). > > The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of > December 2011. > > Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible. > >
1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions be reverted? The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14 hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic in which case the consensus result should be implemented. 2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet? If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies