| 1 |
On Monday 02 February 2004 19:01, James Harlow wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:59:33AM -0500, Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Not sure about the implimentation of a stable:arch, |
| 4 |
> > though I'm sure carpaski and team is loath to having a new |
| 5 |
> > field added as an alternative (stable:true/false?). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Wouldn't it make more sense to keep it as a seperate tree, distributed |
| 8 |
> on seperate servers? This would take care of issues such as: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> * only allowing Gentoo Stable users (ie ones who have coughed up) |
| 11 |
> to access it; |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
As it is now, gentoo stable will be free. I think it will stay free too. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> * not requiring contributing users (ie ones who have paypalled us |
| 16 |
> money) to support paying users; |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
There will be no paying users before these very valid issues have been |
| 19 |
addressed. I personally don't think paying users is such a good idea at the |
| 20 |
moment. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Paul |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 28 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives