| 1 |
Either MTA or MUA brokeness. Another email I have to send a second time. :( |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sunday 03 September 2006 00:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 4 |
> And waiting other 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months won't change the thing. Why? Because |
| 5 |
> we have _no_ accessibility team right now. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Well, the bug is assigned to williamh, who is not /completely/ inactive. I |
| 8 |
wonder, if only 37 commits in more than two years suffices for cvs access, |
| 9 |
though. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> If we had one, the problem would |
| 12 |
> have been solved. Unfortunately that software is doomed to lag behind the |
| 13 |
> rest of Gentoo unless someone maintain it. If it wasn't for the need of |
| 14 |
> that software by some users, probably treecleaners would have removed that |
| 15 |
> already. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> In _this_ particular case, the notice interval is not important. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You're wrong here. What I'm inclined about is that we had (leastwise) a |
| 20 |
fourteen day short notice to when the releaase snapshot would be taken. To |
| 21 |
the end of this time frame there was another one that we'd release with GCC |
| 22 |
4.x. Even if we had enough people to deal with everything thrown at us,it |
| 23 |
would have been impossible to fix and stabilize the relevant packages on all |
| 24 |
architectures. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If I had known this as estimated goal two months earlier, I'd had switched to |
| 27 |
GCC 4.x a while before and noticed the bug, instead when it is too late. I |
| 28 |
consider this part of what is broken within Gentoo communication-wise. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Carsten |
Archives