From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KzxSD-00013e-Qv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:55:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F38F0E0478; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDACAE0478 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.213] (unknown [74.92.132.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9521564CE9 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:55:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds From: Ferris McCormick To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com> <4918D0BC.50202@gentoo.org> <4918DE04.8010207@gentoo.org> <49195BFA.7060404@gentoo.org> <20081111172450.04e02b38@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-rJcGdDOuEic/7JG6V4Nl" Organization: gentoo developer Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:55:02 +0000 Message-Id: <1226426102.6035.341.camel@liasis.inforead.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-Archives-Salt: d6311162-6e73-4153-baa9-5d7eb76fb94b X-Archives-Hash: 67f45547d82785ce0d51b6786d5f27c2 --=-rJcGdDOuEic/7JG6V4Nl Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:26 +0000, Duncan wrote: > Jeroen Roovers posted > 20081111172450.04e02b38@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net, excerpted below, on Tue, 1= 1 > Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100: >=20 > > Words > > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily > > to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a single person's. >=20 > Yes, but it's a relative thing. They obviously do what they can with the= =20 > resources they have (are willing to dedicate). We do the same. A user's= =20 > single system will absolutely be important to him, no doubt about it, but= =20 > if he doesn't believe it worth "superhuman" feats or prioritizing to=20 > ensure it's safety, neither should we. I think I understand what you mean here, but it's not what you wrote as best as I can tell. As a developer, I believe it is my responsibility to work a bit harder just so that the users don't have to resort to '"superhuman" feats' to keep their systems running. I do agree that no matter what we provide, all users (including ourselves) will have to expend some effort to take advantage of it. > No, we don't go around=20 > purposefully breaking things, but both he and we have limits to our=20 > resources and certain priorities in their allocation, and if he's not=20 > placing undue priority on the safety of his machine, why is it even a=20 > question if we will? The presumption should be actions within the bounds= =20 > of rational reality and prioritization of resources for both users and=20 > their distribution, us. No more, no less. >=20 > IOW, I'd have agreed if the point was that it's a machine that's useful=20 > to the user and that he doesn't want broken, and we should behave=20 > accordingly, but the triple emphasis of important, production, critical,=20 > seemed a bit undue for the lengths to which an ordinary user goes or the=20 > priority he reveals by his own actions. And if his actions reveal a=20 > SERIOUS priority in the area, than he's already covered by definition. =20 > That's all I was saying. Regards, Ferris --=20 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) --=-rJcGdDOuEic/7JG6V4Nl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkkZxvYACgkQQa6M3+I///cVkQCgoin7WeNiVzChej3aLYugBsmy IFYAn2EgEFlFaK44EDO9mkXag5vWoMag =0Wxz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-rJcGdDOuEic/7JG6V4Nl--