| 1 |
On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering |
| 4 |
> it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to |
| 5 |
> going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree |
| 6 |
> and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the |
| 7 |
> MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when |
| 8 |
> a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works |
| 9 |
> for everyone. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is |
| 13 |
allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a |
| 14 |
documented process (that doesn't involve council approval). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or |
| 17 |
> am I leaving them in? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it |
| 21 |
be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would |
| 22 |
possibly merge stuff from your overlay)? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards, |
| 25 |
Petteri |
Archives