| 1 |
On Thu, 28 May 2009 22:56:46 +0200 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> So, basically, we can't do anything, because the universe might |
| 4 |
> spontaneously decide to cease to exist. Quite scary, that. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
No. What we do is don't design a fragile solution. We design a solution |
| 7 |
that can handle users doing what we reasonably expect users to do. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> > No-one has provided a viable way of extending the version format |
| 10 |
> > that doesn't require EAPI changes. So unless you're talking about |
| 11 |
> > your "start a whole new tree" idea, |
| 12 |
> Wait, I thought noone had provided a way ... except that one ... |
| 13 |
> argh, cognitive dissonance detected. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'm sorry, you contradicted yourself. Please choose one option only. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
"Viable". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > No-one is suggesting making changes to match silly upstream |
| 20 |
> > versions. |
| 21 |
> But I thought you just said that silly and arbitrary restrictions ... |
| 22 |
> I am confused. You are in a quantum superposition state where you |
| 23 |
> support both sides of an argument and only collapse your brainwave |
| 24 |
> functions whenever someone tries to observe you or something ... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I said that allowing _rc but forbidding -rc was silly and arbitrary. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> > What we are suggesting is making changes to match sensible and |
| 29 |
> > reasonable upstream versions. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Which we already have. Excellent, so you agree that we don't need to |
| 32 |
> change versioning. Sometimes I really like discussing with you, |
| 33 |
> because after a long time you suddenly accept reason :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
No, we don't allow 1.1-rc1, which is a sensible and reasonable upstream |
| 36 |
version. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives