| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:14 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 2 |
> Just my two cents. Not sure about sunrise, but I'm all behind the overlays. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
*sigh* |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I have *never* argued that teams should not be able to run their own |
| 7 |
project-specific overlays. You are the perl team. You are more than |
| 8 |
welcome to run a perl overlay. I never said you shouldn't be able to do |
| 9 |
so, nor has anyone else that I have seen. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Hell, *I* (with ikelos) have an overlay for vmware stuff. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
What we *are* arguing against is having something in a |
| 14 |
non-project-specific overlay, that is not maintained by the project in |
| 15 |
question, and has *specifically* been rejected by the project in |
| 16 |
question. This sort of thing should *never* make it into the sunrise |
| 17 |
overlay, since it has been rejected. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
An easy way to this about this is: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If the kernel team made an overlay and included it, it would be OK. If |
| 22 |
sunrise does so, it isn't. Why? Because the kernel team already |
| 23 |
rejected it for inclusion. We shouldn't be going against the wishes of |
| 24 |
the Gentoo teams with an overlay like this. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Please people, be sure you're actually commenting on the issues at hand, |
| 27 |
rather than just adding noise. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 31 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 32 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 33 |
Games - Developer |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives