| 1 |
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:39 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> You might be overreacting a little here. To bring you up to speed |
| 4 |
> vapier actually filed the original bug for this after I first noticed |
| 5 |
> one of these atoms creeping into the tree while doing pre release atom |
| 6 |
> compare testing for portage-utils around early February. Till this |
| 7 |
> moment there was no definitive decision of any sort. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I think the overreaction here is due to the fact that a seemingly |
| 10 |
"emergency" Council meeting was convened to make this decision. And |
| 11 |
that is a bit confusing (to me, at least). Why the sudden urge to "fix" |
| 12 |
this right *now*? I understand that there's a recent addition with |
| 13 |
ffmpeg and mplayer etc, but this isn't exactly an epidemic in package |
| 14 |
versioning sweeping through the tree, by any stretch of the imagination. |
| 15 |
I think a council decision is probably the correct thing (with heavy |
| 16 |
input from portage and the development community), but an emergency |
| 17 |
council decision? I'm with Doug on this: it's a little out of place at |
| 18 |
the moment. Especially when there isn't really an alternative scheme |
| 19 |
that's been set in stone (the zeroed-out date field idea is one idea -- |
| 20 |
no offense, Robin, but it does seem a little on the klunky side). I |
| 21 |
think it'd be nice to first open such alternatives up to discussion |
| 22 |
before making emergency council decisions and announcements like this. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Seemant |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Seemant |
Archives