From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF491138E4F for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22181E0E49; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo4-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo4-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de [81.169.146.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A449E0F06; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:10:01 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :I3kQYkG6f/ML/Lb0bAYFCBt+SpICkd7E+UrA1ycmip9RDA+sU5X+INxSYYknb57+RfCfNZU= X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from porto.localnet (95-130-165-192.hsi.glasfaser-ostbayern.de [95.130.165.192]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 32.27 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id Y05534q1M19ZKBp (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Sat, 22 Feb 2014 02:09:35 +0100 (CET) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev-announce] Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for Gentoo Council meeting on 2014-02-25 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 02:12:53 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.25-gentoo; KDE/4.12.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Donnie Berkholz , gentoo-dev-announce@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140221040044.GG8819@comet.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20140221040044.GG8819@comet.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo development announcement list X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev-announce@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201402220212.54333.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 1cf55904-2119-4bda-aeb0-d8294fb71b25 X-Archives-Hash: a21f4528d53cdb1a193801fcc1d3f169 Am Freitag, 21. Februar 2014, 05:00:44 schrieb Donnie Berkholz: > I've attached a draft agenda for Tuesday's meeting. Suggestions welcome! Re "Stable keywords on testing architectures": The proposed solution is only touching part of the issue; it kinda ignores what happens to the keywords themselves. Anything is better than the current randomness. Example: Ebuild maintainer wants to drop old versions, looks at eshowkw output, gets confused by random stable / nonstable marking. (Enough people have asked me in the last weeks.) * drop em all * just revert our previous decision as we wont push it anyway * come up with some compromise and define what package maintainers can / cannot do -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde) dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/