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 10C3E138B38 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:16:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 058FFE0AE6; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:15:57 +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 82005E0ADD for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:15:55 +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 7201A33F72C for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:15:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1391570147.3520.7.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords From: Steev Klimaszewski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20140205024806.7d08cb63@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> References: <52E7DBC1.5020102@gentoo.org> <20140128182304.7d458a17@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140203104341.2add2760@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140204210319.GA1935@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140205010833.1bcf8dca@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391559808.3520.2.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205020742.048cef9f@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391564122.3520.4.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205024806.7d08cb63@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: 67d65aec-4fab-44ca-b1fb-68263bb07316 X-Archives-Hash: bb824591ca0943499e033fdba094744d On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600 > Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > > > Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having > > something working we should just remove ebuilds of working packages. > > s/should/could/ s/ebuilds/stable keyword or last stable version/ > > It is at the maintainer's discretion; and such decision is to make > it possible for a maintainer to move on when he or she can no longer > guarantee a working ebuild, to stop being progress-blocked by it. > You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. Keeping it around for "slower" arches does NOT block progress. I have intimate knowledge with what ACTUALLY happens when people pull this bullshit - and that is a system that I can no longer actually work on. And instead of working towards a fix that actually works for people who are ACTUALLY affected by the shitty policy, you hide behind definitions and pedantry. I'm now going to take a break from Gentoo development because this thread has seriously caused my blood to boil based on comments from the peanut gallery (you) where things don't actually affect your day to day work, but your actions do affect mine.