| 1 |
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:22:44 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:13:56 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Dan Meltzer <hydrogen@×××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn |
| 6 |
> > > notices? Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by |
| 7 |
> > > overusing it. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Err, warn notices are supposed to be important warnings. If they are |
| 10 |
> > not it sounds like a good job for QA. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That's a completely different degree of importance. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Sounds like its the right degree of importants for deprecated things upstream |
| 15 |
to me. |
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives