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 9EC5C13827E for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:06:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 76E28E0AE0; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:06:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCC3E0AD7 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:06:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.11.20] (cpe-72-177-217-176.satx.res.rr.com [72.177.217.176]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steev) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 523E033F135 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:06:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1390521859.3909.3.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy From: Steev Klimaszewski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:04:19 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20140124005040.350249c9@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> References: <52D5F0BF.3060305@gentoo.org> <20140115024604.GA3952@laptop.home> <20140115232804.1c26beda@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140116234442.27c361d1@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140119143157.72fc0e91@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140120014713.2cafc257@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140123181242.GA17827@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140123201333.71e52bfc@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1390510534.14914.22.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140123233806.4709abd5@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140123224228.1780.qmail@stuge.se> <20140124005040.350249c9@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 66f74015-7040-4a6e-ae5a-37e81c9cff53 X-Archives-Hash: ea1acb03379bf335ffe1140183437545 On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 00:50 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:42:28 +0100 > Peter Stuge wrote: > > > Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > you shoot down solutions > > > > Maybe it wasn't a very good solution that deserved to be shot down. > > Maybe it was; what is needed here, is the feedback that makes it better. > > Work towards a very good solution deserves more than a plain /dev/null; > if they end up in /dev/null when provided, solutions appear unwelcome. > > Constructivism has to come from both sides to have an useful discussion. > Your "suggestion" was expanding the "arm" keyword to "armv4-linux", "armv5-linux", "armv6-linux", "armv6-hardfloat-linux", "armv7-softfp-linux", "armv7-hardfloat-linux", "armv7-hardfloat-uclibc-linux" - that is nowhere near a good solution. The /dev/null comment was about wanting others to do the work and not contributing anything more than (imo) a stupid idea - if you aren't willing to put in the work, don't expect others to. And yes, I see what you mean now re: my reply seeming off - it would seem when I hit group reply, for some reason, Evolution is putting Peter Stuge into the CC, and not Tom Wijsman (despite hitting group reply from your email. Maybe there should have been more testing of Gnome 3.8 before it was stabled on x86...