| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> "Caleb Tennis" <caleb@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back |
| 4 |
>>> and where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to do |
| 5 |
>>> something, I'd like to see them... Somehow I doubt it happens very |
| 6 |
>>> often, if at all. |
| 7 |
>> Why? You aren't the person I or anyone else has to make a case to. |
| 8 |
>> In fact, I never would have mailed the list about this to prevent |
| 9 |
>> this very type of potentially-out-of-control discussion from |
| 10 |
>> occurring, except that the e-mail from Mike said that discussion |
| 11 |
>> topics needed to be sent to the list. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Ah, so you'd like the Council to jump to some arbitrary decision, |
| 14 |
> rather than hearing specific examples and evidence from all involved? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> How will providing specific examples of how people are being held up |
| 17 |
> not be beneficial to the decision-making process? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
First you have to acknowledge that old perpetually open bugs and old |
| 20 |
unmaintained ebuilds are a maintenance burden. There seems to be a |
| 21 |
consensus among maintainers that they are, but when given the examples |
| 22 |
of xfce and media-* you responded that those are not a priority for the |
| 23 |
archs in question. Well, that's nice, but they are for the maintainers |
| 24 |
of those herds and that's what we're talking about. We're not actively |
| 25 |
looking for ways to dump more work on the arch teams, but we're also |
| 26 |
tired of having more work dumped on us. We're looking for a solution |
| 27 |
that has both sides happy here, but that won't happen if you don't admit |
| 28 |
there's a problem. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
fonts, by design, by neglect |
| 33 |
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect |
| 34 |
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives