| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:19:12 +0100 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Uhm. Do you think these ideas of yours through at all before posting |
| 5 |
> > them? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Being rude doesn't make you cool. (Nor make your points more |
| 8 |
> effective) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That's not being rude. It's an attempt to bring your attention to the |
| 11 |
fact that other people read what you right, so you're doing them a |
| 12 |
discourtesy by wasting their time by repeatedly posting ideas you |
| 13 |
haven't thought through and that aren't even remotely workable. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > Either you think the entire tree should be switched to a new EAPI in |
| 16 |
> > one go, in which case how on earth is that going to get done, or you |
| 17 |
> > don't, in which case there's no point to branches, and any migration |
| 18 |
> > can be done using a simple tag. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I'd like you to rethink your statement and then come again. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
We've been over this before. The whole point of EAPI is that it avoids |
| 23 |
the need for mass tree changes. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives