| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:30:29PM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >>I feel really confused. Have you read the logs of the recent affair? |
| 6 |
> >>Devrel *hadn't* requested anything, infra made an action on their own |
| 7 |
> >>and *didn't* revert it even after being told by devrel that no action |
| 8 |
> >>was requested. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > And then there was much discussion and it was largely resolved |
| 12 |
> > between the two projects, so I don't see how it's relevant to what I |
| 13 |
> > said. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Well, you said that "Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on |
| 16 |
> the job quite so often & so hard before handling this particular |
| 17 |
> incident." - but imho they didn't in the recent case, either. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I was referring to the current pattern devrel seems locked in to, |
| 21 |
starting with current policy (and some IMO internal mishandling of the |
| 22 |
situation, but in the past and nothing a flamefest should be started |
| 23 |
over for sure). The 'infra picks up pieces' issue really should be a |
| 24 |
last resort sort of deal. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Thanks for polite replies, btw. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
And same to you ;) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 33 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives