Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Harald van Dijk" <truedfx@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:26:28
Message-Id: 20060623181924.GA20093@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise] by Seemant Kulleen
1 On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:33:21PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
2 > On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 18:07 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
3 > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
4 > > > On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
5 > > > > You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he
6 > > > > *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another?
7 > > >
8 > > > The jave "unofficial" overlay is well on its way to becoming an official
9 > > > and officially hosted overlay.
10 > >
11 > > And once it is, it can be given special treatment.
12 >
13 > We're talking around each other, let's stop. I'm not advocating that
14 > the overlay keywords for sunrise cease -- as I stated in another part of
15 > this thread: I do not care one way or the other. I don't think it is
16 > appropriate, however, to make other projects hostage because you don't
17 > like what's going on with your pet project.
18
19 Agreed, but I don't think there's any reading of the original message
20 that allows continuing use of Gentoo's bugzilla for Java's overlay until
21 it is hosted by Gentoo, so I don't consider this Jakub's decision.
22
23 > > Maybe discussions have been focused on policy more than development
24 > > itself, but for the most part (yes, there have been exceptions), they
25 > > have still been focused on Gentoo. You seem to be making it personal,
26 > > which is over the line for me.
27 >
28 > I'm pretty sure I have not made it personal. I'm not addressing any one
29 > in particular on these, nor do I have anything against any parties (or
30 > for any parties for that matter). I'm sorry if you took my words that
31 > way, that was certainly not the intent from this side.
32
33 It was mostly the "gentoo-babies" reference to this list that I
34 considered name-calling and a bit too much, even if it wasn't directed
35 at any single person in particular. If I misunderstood you, sorry.
36
37 > > Your frustration is understandable, but I think you took it out on the
38 > > wrong message, and very possibly the wrong person.
39 >
40 > I know what I did, and they were both the correct target. We can take
41 > this off-list and include Jakub himself in it, if you're dying to know.
42 > I think Jakub himself knows full well *exactly* where I came from and
43 > why.
44
45 If there's something between you and Jakub that I'm not aware of, I'll
46 stay out of that. It doesn't affect my opinion on this specific topic,
47 though.
48 --
49 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list