| 1 |
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:36:13 -0500 (EST) |
| 2 |
"Caleb Tennis" <caleb@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or justification, and |
| 4 |
> > every previous time said issue has been raised it's turned out to be |
| 5 |
> > somewhere between highly misleading and utter bollocks. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Let's assume that you are right, and that dropping keywords is not a |
| 8 |
> proper thing to do. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in |
| 11 |
> bugzilla? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That depends upon whether the keyword request is important. If it isn't, |
| 14 |
you wait for the arch team to get around to it. If it is (and |
| 15 |
legitimately so -- we're not talking spurious "I want to remove this |
| 16 |
old version that doesn't affect anything, that works fine and isn't |
| 17 |
causing any problems beyond it existing" here), you ask the arch team to |
| 18 |
prioritise it, explaining why. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> If the arch team in question was to completely disband and |
| 21 |
> stop all keywording today, then you're suggesting the proper thing to |
| 22 |
> do is to never remove the ebuild from portage that has keywords for |
| 23 |
> that arch? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If that ever comes remotely close to happening then the issue can be |
| 26 |
raised when it does. You might as well ask what would happen if |
| 27 |
suddenly all the KDE maintainers disappeared. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives