From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EdYoh-0005XL-UV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:56:08 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJJstYq003000; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:54:55 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJJpQkg011962 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:51:27 GMT Received: from adsl-67-39-48-198.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net ([67.39.48.198] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EdYkA-0003lI-JQ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:51:26 +0000 Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:51:15 -0600 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41 Message-ID: <20051119195115.GA4535@nightcrawler> References: <20051119170615.GW12982@mail.lieber.org> <20051119190355.GB28867@gentoo.org> <20051119191403.GZ12982@mail.lieber.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9amGYk9869ThD9tj" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051119191403.GZ12982@mail.lieber.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 3e882fd8-487d-4567-a367-24697ded4760 X-Archives-Hash: 5422bf084a66d7f68373280cd6515a93 --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:14:03PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100 or thereabouts, Sven Vermeulen w= rote: > > Isn't this an issue that also exists for the Gentoo developers in gener= al? >=20 > Not as much since we can track things like last cvs commit, last login to > toucan, etc. But it does exist to some extent. >=20 > That does not, however, make it acceptable to further exacerbate the > problem. We're working towards improving the procedures and controls we > have in place today. We're not going to implement something that will mo= ve > us backwards. I'll again point out that the glep doesn't actually mandate it, states=20 it's the lowest common denominator that's acceptable. Stop pointing at one interpretation of it that sucks, when the glep=20 _does_ leave it open to you how to implement it. It's a waste of=20 people's time and bandwidth, and is a bit disenguous. ~harring --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDf4IzvdBxRoA3VU0RAp+DAKDeaxs3LEdrviLK8tOQcKAnAksu8ACeP/Jp NNRbmrysjntWyZfScOAywQA= =VIlA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9amGYk9869ThD9tj-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list