On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:39 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:

> You might be overreacting a little here. To bring you up to speed
> vapier actually filed the original bug for this after I first noticed
> one of these atoms creeping into the tree while doing pre release atom
> compare testing for portage-utils around early February. Till this
> moment there was no definitive decision of any sort.

I think the overreaction here is due to the fact that a seemingly
"emergency" Council meeting was convened to make this decision.  And
that is a bit confusing (to me, at least).  Why the sudden urge to "fix"
this right *now*? I understand that there's a recent addition with
ffmpeg and mplayer etc, but this isn't exactly an epidemic in package
versioning sweeping through the tree, by any stretch of the imagination.
I think a council decision is probably the correct thing (with heavy
input from portage and the development community), but an emergency
council decision?  I'm with Doug on this: it's a little out of place at
the moment.  Especially when there isn't really an alternative scheme
that's been set in stone (the zeroed-out date field idea is one idea --
no offense, Robin, but it does seem a little on the klunky side).   I
think it'd be nice to first open such alternatives up to discussion
before making emergency council decisions and announcements like this.

Thanks,

Seemant


Thanks,

Seemant