| 1 |
foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> If you really are clinging on to examples to make a point I could |
| 3 |
> probably fish more than 1 (!) up where both of your arches were running |
| 4 |
> with known bugged versions because of your liberal views on marking |
| 5 |
> stable. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
if by bugged you mean versions that work? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I find it ironic that you who are so keen on pointing out that something |
| 10 |
> was broken in x86 gnome and obviously knew about it all this time, |
| 11 |
> failed to inform us during that period. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
there was an open bug report. would you have liked us to file duplicates? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I'd appreciate it if you guys stopped distorting the facts to |
| 16 |
> consolidate your own QA-hurting policy of moving beyond the maintainers |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
who are you to talk about QA hurting? just take a look at: |
| 19 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24439 |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
you even have the portage devs screaming at you there. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> arch. It's not serving the community you are pretending to be part of in |
| 24 |
> any way and I had hoped you'd be more mature than this. Don't play it on |
| 25 |
> examples that fit your views, the sheer lack of it actually makes your |
| 26 |
> case even weaker than it was. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> - foser |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
well i'm pretty sure i shouldnt be taking QA advice from the gnome team. |
| 31 |
that and the bug i mention is quite an interesting read. i'd say my case |
| 32 |
for not paying attention to a single word you say would indeed be quite |
| 33 |
strong. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Travis Tilley <lv@g.o> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives