From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64709-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C3E138B38
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <steev@gentoo.org>
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>
	 <CAGfcS_nsbNrSKVpg3TJbRnbRcc5BqL2-aOK1twE7vxv2tZ8sZg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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 <steev@gentoo.org> 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.