Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[foser]

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 12:11 -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > *sigh* x86 having broken stable gnome for two weeks and not realising
> > it (whilst other archs who went ahead of x86 had it working) just goes
> > to show that this is not always the case.
>
> i refrained from doing the i-told-you-so when that happened, but i just
> cant help it now. i told you so! (though it's still in really really
> really bad taste)

omg, this is at least the third time this gets chewed out, you guys are
really, really trying hard to make a point out of something that wasn't
the gnome teams fault to begin with.

If you really are clinging on to examples to make a point I could
probably fish more than 1 (!) up where both of your arches were running
with known bugged versions because of your liberal views on marking
stable.

> i just found it ironic that it was someone from the gnome team who was
> arguing for never marking packages stable last the maintainer's arch,
> and gnome was broken on it's maintainer's arch for so long. for amd64,
> nobody complained about epiphany being broken.

I find it ironic that you who are so keen on pointing out that something
was broken in x86 gnome and obviously knew about it all this time,
failed to inform us during that period. So actually you put yourself in
a position here where you have as much blame -or even more- as the
mozilla team, who failed to communicate the change in the first place.
Where was your mail to the gnome herd lv or ciaranm ?

I'd appreciate it if you guys stopped distorting the facts to
consolidate your own QA-hurting policy of moving beyond the maintainers
arch. It's not serving the community you are pretending to be part of in
any way and I had hoped you'd be more mature than this. Don't play it on
examples that fit your views, the sheer lack of it actually makes your
case even weaker than it was.

- foser