1 |
Fabian Groffen schrieb: |
2 |
> All, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Apologies for the short notice in advance. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> In a little more than one week, the council will meet again. This is |
7 |
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the |
8 |
> agenda to vote on. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Please respond to this email with agenda items. Please do not hestitate |
11 |
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
12 |
> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
13 |
> |
14 |
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of |
15 |
> December 2011. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions |
22 |
be reverted? |
23 |
|
24 |
The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14 |
25 |
hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the |
26 |
discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus |
27 |
about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like |
28 |
to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic |
29 |
in which case the consensus result should be implemented. |
30 |
|
31 |
2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet? |
32 |
|
33 |
If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform |
34 |
users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in |
35 |
mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty |
36 |
easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour. |