| 1 |
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 17:33:17 Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/31/10 23:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 16:28:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> To be very clear: Please take my vote against increasing dependencies on |
| 5 |
> >> Google. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > so dont use it |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> >> On a side note: This is not a technical discussion only. |
| 10 |
> >> As such please use gentoo-core for this next time. Thanks. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > incorrect ... it should either be gentoo-dev or gentoo-project. there is |
| 13 |
> > no need for use of the closed gentoo-core list. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> did you even read all of my mail? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
take it down a notch |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> i cannot "not use it" - that's my point. i'll be forced to, forced in |
| 20 |
> or forced out. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
no one is forcing you to, nor is anyone talking about having teams use it. if |
| 23 |
Gentoo developers themselves choose to, it's going to happen irregardless of |
| 24 |
what Alec is proposing. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> it's nothing for gentoo-dev as it's not purely technical. |
| 27 |
> can it be more obvious? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
your logic does not lead to the statement that gentoo-core is the appropriate |
| 30 |
place. as i already suggested, gentoo-project is an alternative to gentoo-dev |
| 31 |
for non-technical issues. as has been said many times in the past, gentoo- |
| 32 |
core should not be thought of as the "non-technical gentoo-dev alternative". |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
a bit ironic you espouse using open source software on fully controlled |
| 35 |
systems in one half while suggesting people use the closed gentoo-core mailing |
| 36 |
list in another ... |
| 37 |
-mike |
Archives