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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HkT0j-0007dg-I7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 05 May 2007 22:45:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l45MhlgF024328; Sat, 5 May 2007 22:43:47 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l45Mdeaw017599 for ; Sat, 5 May 2007 22:39:41 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C42E8D315 for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 00:04:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28874-06 for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 00:04:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from snowflake (unknown [62.6.163.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C823E8D305 for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 00:04:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 23:38:39 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [news-item] Paludis 0.24 Message-ID: <20070505233839.3c24af77@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <200705060030.28168.expose@luftgetrock.net> References: <200705042249.48267.peper@gentoo.org> <463D00A1.5000103@gentoo.org> <20070505232103.596eddc1@snowflake> <200705060030.28168.expose@luftgetrock.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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; boundary=Sig_tbHLipYX.o1QdDmLz2XgGLL; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ferdyx.org X-Archives-Salt: 4de7d11a-0f46-49e5-8bfe-22ec8faadacd X-Archives-Hash: 357e9bf6cd1b557295b1891b039b4abe --Sig_tbHLipYX.o1QdDmLz2XgGLL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:30:28 +0200 expose@luftgetrock.net wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > No, but it affects the impact upon user experience, which is the > > entire point of the process. This is, after all, about delivering > > what's best for affected users. > No it is not. > It is about wether or not this news item would fit into the current > set of rules, which it would not. So you're saying that you're attempting to use wording technicalities to prevent an improvement to the user experience? > As in the long run, violating self-set rules will for sure not be > beneficial for the "user experience". The whole point of GLEP 42 is to improve the user experience. The whole point of the word 'critical' is to avoid having GLEP 42 used for items that are not relevant to most targetted users -- that is, messages like "There is a new foo USE flag that enables the fancy new foo behaviour". --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_tbHLipYX.o1QdDmLz2XgGLL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGPQdx96zL6DUtXhERAqwRAKCYXYENj/M7n5DWaUbAB+sWcR6ylQCgqT9E gdD6RWojiyjPGLe2V7cVzU0= =PXsq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_tbHLipYX.o1QdDmLz2XgGLL-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list