| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 5 |
> Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 6 |
>> So, only this reply. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> May I conclude that nobody objects to the above? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> Ulrich |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a |
| 13 |
> virtual points to packages foo and bar, and both foo and bar were tested |
| 14 |
> and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to then wait |
| 15 |
> for them to mark the virtual stable as well, since at least in my |
| 16 |
> perception the only function of that virtual is to say use one of these |
| 17 |
> packages - which have already been marked stable. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> /me hopes some arch brains step in, like weeve in particular, who is |
| 20 |
> usually far more eloquent at defending an arch's position |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Michael, |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
for a virtual pointing to packages foo and bar, only one of them needs |
| 26 |
to be stable before the virtual can be marked as stable, right? |
| 27 |
So your above comment should read "if a virtual points to packages foo |
| 28 |
and bar, and [either foo or bar was] tested and marked stable by the |
| 29 |
arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the |
| 30 |
virtual stable as well", right? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
- -- |
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 36 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Proctors |
| 37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 39 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
iD8DBQFGXs9kcAWygvVEyAIRAnoUAJ4iQc4qhyn8Yehuvs2w5AHknU2crgCfVvCx |
| 42 |
PWibZvOya/nyGDZDi72rwLs= |
| 43 |
=YAH2 |
| 44 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives