From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JB0ar-0006GR-J0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:25:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id m054OIPd002071; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:24:19 GMT Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org (c-24-6-168-204.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.168.204]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m054KmnO028679 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:20:48 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7A717B99DE for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:20:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at twi-31o2.org Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gravity.twi-31o2.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6pG8rUKzJHS1 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:20:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (unknown [192.168.1.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36BFF17B8046 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:20:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20080104223754.3fb48b85@snowcone> References: <20080101103002.083C4652C4@smtp.gentoo.org> <54551.192.168.2.159.1199365359.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <477D75CA.1030003@gentoo.org> <20080104000155.23e056b4@snowcone> <20080104004653.039f488e@snowcone> <20080104012750.63f4f23a@snowcone> <63044.68.54.223.178.1199445791.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <20080104210213.50a99e6b@snowcone> <61164.68.54.223.178.1199485599.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <20080104223754.3fb48b85@snowcone> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Gz2AQBOnxeJnXXU9HyNi" Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:20:18 -0800 Message-Id: <1199506818.7609.30.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 X-Archives-Salt: 181d522f-9431-47c1-b5f9-6d231f787fb4 X-Archives-Hash: e81f9c64eaecbbeb6057192cf128197e --=-Gz2AQBOnxeJnXXU9HyNi Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 22:37 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Really, I'd like to see some genuine examples of cases where people > think they have a legitimate value of Z... How about we base X Y and Z on the number of verifiable users of said arch? That's just as arbitrary and fits with the normal "pink ponies" philosophy of pulling complete bullshit out of the air and using it as a justification or argument. Maybe we'll base it on how many months they've been security-supported? No offense to anyone, but holding back hundreds of developers and thousands of users for a handful of developers, who could do their jobs just as well without stable KEYWORDS, and an nearly as small number of users, just isn't worth it to us all. How many users do you really think breaking some of these arches affects? If the architecture (or its team) is incapable of maintaining stable KEYWORDS in a timely manner, why should we care about them, again? --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation --=-Gz2AQBOnxeJnXXU9HyNi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHfwWCkT4lNIS36YERAncSAJ4uwDPtkD7n2QRSUoDJ24vwsMZPTACguQBl WlI+oP5lTY//ZUhuVrO/rcI= =kHiz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Gz2AQBOnxeJnXXU9HyNi-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list