From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OXqY9-0002Hx-Ug for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:02:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F0DDE0ADD; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:02:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF93E08AE for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.2] (graaff.xs4all.nl [80.101.101.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E42C21B411B for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:01:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org: [Bug 322157] [mail-filter/procmail] new ebuild + autocreate maildirs] From: Hans de Graaff To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <20100707225651.GA8832@nibiru.local> <4C35099C.2010202@gentoo.org> <20100710161343.GC15161@nibiru.local> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-5cOQmUR7n5DxEQTzV2GH" Organization: Gentoo Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:01:47 +0200 Message-ID: <1278831707.1752.17.camel@localhost> 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 2.30.2 X-Archives-Salt: adf27e20-d0eb-4bb7-99e2-f63b05d28d13 X-Archives-Hash: 363cdfdadcb7211f7d98b981edc51b7f --=-5cOQmUR7n5DxEQTzV2GH Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 01:28 -0400, Jacob Godserv wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:13, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > I've already explained the strategy behind the git repo (and not > > doing plaintext patches). Please refer to my paper, and my other > > mails posted recently on this list. >=20 > I'm not quite sure I understand your response here. He didn't ask for > you to explain the strategy. He asked for you to provide plain-text > patches. I do understand the response, because part of the strategy mentioned *is* not to provide plain-text patches, but instead manage them, possibly jointly with other distributions, in a midstream repository. =46rom the comments it looks like most developers (including me) won't be happy to switch to such an intermediate point at the moment. Perhaps the best approach would be to focus on packages with unmaintained or abandoned upstreams. For those packages there is a much more clear benefit of pooling together distribution patches. Kind regards, Hans --=-5cOQmUR7n5DxEQTzV2GH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iF4EABEIAAYFAkw5bFsACgkQZihJkut28SupqQEArh+vt9c+RqhykVgHinYqBUKg HhKhNcuJg7uJ0/YWyFgBAIOM3onQhiDjX7G/yHTyNY1V0xbjrQfVy3t7bYfLxxDf =wy6r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-5cOQmUR7n5DxEQTzV2GH--