Archives
Archives
| From: | Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy | ||
| Date: | Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:40:34 | ||
| Message-Id: | 52D5F518.3040709@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Tom Wijsman |
||
| 1 | On 01/14/2014 09:34 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 | > |
| 3 | >> Strictly from a user's perspective. I don't, unless I do, in which |
| 4 | >> case I know that I do, and I could just keyword the thing if I wanted |
| 5 | >> to. |
| 6 | > |
| 7 | > This is the exact same argument as in your other mail, which is your |
| 8 | > point of view; this is under the assumption that you know that |
| 9 | > stabilization is worsening over time, which users may not perceive. |
| 10 | > |
| 11 | |
| 12 | I've written too many emails today, I hereby give up =) |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy | Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> |