| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> There really wasn't much loud objection when the proposal came up |
| 4 |
>> again last week |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> This does not mean that everybody agreed. |
| 7 |
> However, all arguments had been exchanged before, |
| 8 |
> so repeating them would just have been pointless: |
| 9 |
> Eventually a decision had to be made, and I am confident |
| 10 |
> that it was made by the portage team in the full awareness |
| 11 |
> of the positive and negative consequences of that decision, |
| 12 |
> because all portage developers had participated in the |
| 13 |
> previous discussion. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sure, but the portage team can really only dictate the upstream |
| 18 |
defaults of portage, not tree policy. I don't disagree with them, but |
| 19 |
it wouldn't hurt to have the Council or QA weigh in just so that we're |
| 20 |
not endlessly bickering about whether it is official or not. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives