From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3290 invoked by uid 1002); 26 Jun 2003 18:28:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 27379 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 18:28:42 -0000 From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-core@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:28:23 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <3EFA47A7.5080608@gentoo.org> <20030626115612.GA3681@gonzo.peterjohanson.com> <20030626052852.1c3037fa.seemant@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20030626052852.1c3037fa.seemant@gentoo.org> Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_Utz++EwPlBCP0PL"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200306262028.36599.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0 X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now X-Archives-Salt: 3b04bda8-c3e0-4115-b297-f52739ab0dbb X-Archives-Hash: ee2624fee804285efd2c67c860e9aeef --Boundary-02=_Utz++EwPlBCP0PL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 26 June 2003 14:28, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > OK, here's what I am thinking about. While you respect that Daniel does > not want to get into a mud slinging contest, you're asking him to. As far > as an account of what happened, it really makes no difference -- it's a > point of one's word against another's word. > > The crux however, is that you mentioned issues that were raised. I rather > believe those issues are what should be addressed, rather than "he said > this, but this is what happened" because the latter is futile, and this > isn't Jerry Springer. > > So, let's get those issues which need addressing out into the open instea= d, > shall we. > > This is going to -dev, but it's targetted mainly at the gentoo developers > (no offense to anyone else, and your input is very much welcomed as well)= =2E=20 > This is my invitation. You can email the list or email me privately (so > that there is confidentiality, if you're worried about that) and tell me > your issues. While you're at it, tell me the 3 biggest things you'd like > to see changed, and how. > > You say it's about transparency, I say, if you have a gripe, voice it so = it > can be seen. If it is not seen, it can not be addressed. As a member of > the gentoo leadership, this is my invitation to you. Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It concerns porta= ge.=20 There are many features that portage will implement someday and that have=20 allready been identified. Many of those TODO's have been there a long time.= =20 While I know that it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that=20 adding features is much work, I would like to know the status of those=20 features. Paul ps. As a suggestion, I understand that current portage might need a rewrite= =20 for parts. If it is not too straining a testing portage might be made to=20 accommodate such a rewrite, while maintaining the current portage. =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Researcher Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --Boundary-02=_Utz++EwPlBCP0PL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA++ztUbKx5DBjWFdsRAqu+AJ0f88/+iXtnDZ/PWnNN55A/T54hYgCfZMmI n2/d1egUIZ9Ozfs3xo3SnLc= =W2Dc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_Utz++EwPlBCP0PL--