Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Sid S <r030t1@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's future directtion ?
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:03:17
Message-Id: CAAD4mYhjXoqdsJq8b46NzyKO8JoYnx78J-4mYhE0JY2DqBUx_w@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's future directtion ? by hasufell
1 Hasufell, what are you referring to by attempts to make Gentoo more
2 friendly to gaming?
3
4 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 1:38 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
5
6 > Alan Mackenzie:
7 > > So that
8 > > instead of conceptualising a "branch" (as you would do with Mercurial,
9 > > Bazaar, Subversion, or even CVS), you need to think about "commits
10 > > reachable from a certain head (excluding commits reachable from some
11 > > other head)".
12 >
13 > [snipping everything that is not technical]
14 >
15 > How exactly is that a disadvantage? You are just complaining about the
16 > way a concept is presented without saying what actual limitations that
17 > implies (if any).
18 >
19 > If you like mercurial better, use that. Speaking about "disadvantages"
20 > however requires a bit more than "I like that way better".
21 >
22 >

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's future directtion ? Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>