From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9l8c-0004L6-7d for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:19:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C607CE042D; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dev.gentooexperimental.org (dev.gentooexperimental.org [81.93.240.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A274DE042D for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lolcathost.localnet (xdsl-87-79-233-251.netcologne.de [87.79.233.251]) by dev.gentooexperimental.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330ED62D6C8 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 21:19:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28 Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:19:35 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.30-rc6-git7; KDE/4.2.88; x86_64; ; ) References: <1243489596.10450.24.camel@localhost> <200905282030.44496.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090528194845.30a7c9ad@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090528194845.30a7c9ad@snowcone> 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-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200905282119.35666.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 76a925ed-ee00-4394-8a36-327e6cbbca47 X-Archives-Hash: 5fe7a2eea6fd0bdc7aa2be1496b2ef9e You know, usually snipping away everything else is a bit evil because it removes context, but in this case I just want to point out one or two little pieces ... I almost feel bad for writing so many emails to this list. On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:48:45 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > For example a readonly repository would guarantee that the cache is > > always consistent. > > Until someone modifies it, yes. > Well. DUH. That's why it is readonly. Otherwise it wouldn't be readonly. > > > It is the best. If we're requiring EAPI before trying to parse PV, > > > all the EAPIs have to be known to do any ordering. > > > > ... and why the [censored] would we want that then? > > Because without that, we can't make changes to the version format. ... why? I mean, you're turning in a tight little circle. We need to change the version format ... because ... we ... need to change it. But WHY do we want it? > > It would help if you would tolerate other opinions (or even the > > possibility that other people may have opinions that do not agree > > with you). > > The only issue of opinion is whether or not .ebuild-X and .eapi-X.eb > look pretty. The rest is purely technical and entirely objective. I think I have pointed you a few times at objective statements disagreeing with your subjective opinion. I hate repeating myself.