| 1 |
On Saturday 19 June 2004 05:32 pm, foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> If it breaks, the maintainer gets the bugs, not the arch, because the |
| 3 |
> break wouldn't be arch specfic, but a general problem. That's the whole |
| 4 |
> point. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
i dunno, if a bug so much as mentions amd64 it gets assigned to us, with very |
| 7 |
few exceptions. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Actually, because we paid attention to it, it has not lead to any |
| 10 |
> serious treaths to stable arches trees. So if we let go and you do for |
| 11 |
> once suffer the consequences, this might still change, but I hope it |
| 12 |
> won't have to come that. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
uhhh.... right. who died and made you -GOD-? if you dont fix a bug personally, |
| 15 |
someone else will. and some other dev will commit it (like me). and you will |
| 16 |
bitch, of course, since we touched your ebuilds. but jesus... to threaten |
| 17 |
someone with a broken stable by refusing to care. *shakes head* |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Travis Tilley <lv@g.o> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives