| 1 |
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:34:22 +0200 |
| 2 |
Wernfried Haas <amne@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 06:21:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > So the only important question is whether the news items are useful |
| 5 |
> > for the people who will see them. In this case we know the answer |
| 6 |
> > is yes. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> No one answered my question asked in Message-ID: |
| 9 |
> <20070505090630.GA14287@×××××××××.rechner> what paludis actually does |
| 10 |
> in case it encounters a config file using the old syntax so far, but |
| 11 |
> as long it doesn't break the system, it doesn't need a news item. |
| 12 |
> GLEP 42 talks about critical, really important news, not just useful |
| 13 |
> ones. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It warns noisily. It doesn't say how to fix it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Imho the whole GLEP process is being abused to define some scenario to |
| 18 |
> get the support for news, and then push it through for stuff way |
| 19 |
> outside the boundaries defined in the GLEP. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Hardly... Not having the news item will cause considerable user |
| 22 |
confusion. Having the news item won't cause any users to value news |
| 23 |
items less. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives