| 1 |
On Saturday 05 November 2005 03:16, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:03:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 69 days since his farewell mail, by my count. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Oops, you're correct. I don't have -core archives, and I based that on |
| 6 |
> a comment he made on his retirement bug (the comment was dated |
| 7 |
> September). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
No probs... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> > While I like mcummings - he took perl-related portage functionality |
| 12 |
> > (including a portage of the bugs ;) and improved it - I personally don't |
| 13 |
> > really like the special casing of when procedures need and apply and when |
| 14 |
> > they need not. If the procedures are a problem then fix them (which |
| 15 |
> > should be a team effort); don't just bypass them when you feel they don't |
| 16 |
> > apply. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> A more than fair point. Perhaps we should talk about what the rules are |
| 19 |
> for returning devs. I'm holding his reinstatement in the meanwhile. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'd prefer he be reinstated actually - I'm pretty sure we have no hardcore |
| 22 |
perl people at the moment. I'm just pointing out that if the current policies |
| 23 |
and/or procedures don't fit the bill, they should be revised rather than be |
| 24 |
side-stepped. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
CC'ing gentoo-devrel@g.o as I imagine that's where discussion of what should |
| 27 |
be done now and/or in the future should lie... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |
Archives