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 31FF91380DC for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:26:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98445E0C2D; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:26:10 +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 8225EE0C27 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:26:09 +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 7B4F933F833 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:26:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1391617561.3160.10.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords From: Steev Klimaszewski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0600 In-Reply-To: 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> <1391570147.3520.7.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> 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: d9949bad-d0bb-4470-a83b-bfab80d6e6f9 X-Archives-Hash: 74bbf08b56d0131016a593c56e9c2a79 On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:52 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > > > > 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. > > It isn't like deleted ebuilds magically disappear. You can always dig > them out of CVS and stick them in an overlay. It just isn't the > maintainer's problem. Any dev can also co-maintain a package and keep > the old version around. > > Main issue I could see with that is stuff we don't stick in cvs/git, > like large patches and non-upstream distfiles. That really does need > a better solution as has come up before on-list, but I think this is > really a different problem. > This is true, and normally I would have no problems digging out an old ebuild, although in this specific case, the old git ebuild will not work, and any ebuild that relies on the new git eclass will not work either... I understood the reason for the change, and it was and is definitely an unfortunate turn of events, though I finally opened a bug about it so we can hopefully track down why git 1.8+ doesn't work on arm uclibc (it works fine on x86/amd64 uclibc). > > 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. > > Email threads really aren't the venue for decision-making. They're a > great place to suggest ideas, and you have to look at them that way. > I've barely skimmed half the messages in this thread, mainly to look > for actual solution suggestions, and sometimes the first reply to one > contains some useful criticism. > > It looks like QA has actually intervened with an intended solution. > If you don't like it anybody can ask the council to intervene (looks > like there is less than a week to the next meeting). > > Simply debating the issues back and forth on an email list really > isn't like to change things much, and as you and others have pointed > out it can be an extremely frustrating activity. > > Rich > There is more to it than that. Normally discussions can be good, but when you try to talk to a brick wall, it's absolutely pointless.