| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Saturday 19 June 2004 02:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> Thirty days? No. |
| 6 |
- -- snip -- |
| 7 |
>That "30" is a rough guideline, not a hard rule. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Surpisingly enough, the arch teams do know what they're doing here. |
| 10 |
- -- snip -- |
| 11 |
> What we're doing works. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think you have made this clear. ;-) And I'm very happy that you don't follow |
| 14 |
a strict 30 day rule with e.g. glibc, too. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Or, if you'd like a non-core example... |
| 17 |
- --snip-- |
| 18 |
> If in doubt, the relevant person is consulted on IRC or by email first. |
| 19 |
> This isn't a case of us consistently going around marking dodgy things |
| 20 |
> as stable. We keyword *as is appropriate*, and the system works. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Jon openend the thread with such an example (which means that base system |
| 23 |
isn't the very first addressee, btw.) So either a dev is pissed about not |
| 24 |
having control about his _very_own_ bunch of maintained ebuilds or not all |
| 25 |
arch devs are as careful as you describe. If this happens too often, then it |
| 26 |
is better to create a communication policy in this case, than having |
| 27 |
ill-tempered developers, accusing others to mangle their ebuilds. I think it |
| 28 |
would be good, if the complaining dev/s could say a word or two. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Carsten |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iD8DBQFA05SyVwbzmvGLSW8RAp5AAKCaygAI3UEGtknUnzn4zDloC0iGIACffaMr |
| 36 |
VbHEhpOEgs9I8fnAi5+ptc0= |
| 37 |
=GCuh |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives