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 1HkcYg-0006wQ-91 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 06 May 2007 08:57:34 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l468txWs014045; Sun, 6 May 2007 08:55:59 GMT Received: from dd14500.kasserver.com (dd14500.kasserver.com [85.13.135.241]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l468rZOv010923 for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 08:53:35 GMT Received: from hoshino (unknown [82.139.196.236]) by dd14500.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F84B142E8 for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 10:53:35 +0200 (CEST) From: expose@luftgetrock.net To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [news-item] Paludis 0.24 Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:53:19 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200705042249.48267.peper@gentoo.org> <463D5F10.2030600@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <463D5F10.2030600@gentoo.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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705061053.20160.expose@luftgetrock.net> X-Archives-Salt: 5535b065-04d9-4640-811f-ad10aa7ec234 X-Archives-Hash: 7a97d546ced38075eaae81692bb5f460 Daniel Drake wrote: > Is the above correct? AFAIK, yes. Daniel Drake wrote: > I can understand that the system may have been dreamed up with this in > mind, and this certainly isn't an unreasonable design, but I don't see > the corresponding text in the GLEP. Which does not seem to be a problem to Ciaran McCreesh as he stated > So you're saying that you're attempting to use wording technicalities > to prevent an improvement to the user experience? (earlier this day, 00:38:39) > Mike already suggested that we set some news standards. I think we > should go further: after discussion if we do decide this kind of article > is valid news, then we should carefully reword some parts of the GLEP > and maybe even rename it. Adding a few examples of valid and invalid > items (plus explanations why) would be beneficial as well. Different forms of spreading news may never overlap, as this would cause arguments for no reason. For problems which are as easy to fix as this one, we got other ways of spread the news already. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list