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 1M9mqs-0002HY-RK for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 28 May 2009 21:09:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA30DE067D; Thu, 28 May 2009 21:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f213.google.com (mail-ew0-f213.google.com [209.85.219.213]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB360E067D for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 21:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so5315872ewy.34 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 14:09:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=PAu1v+zgpvvqLy8Q7ST6pI9oqUl3xNK93plKZ/j6a9M=; b=XeJlBe0np25weDXfkSNDt8KhDn/ULZS9R+6tTHJbyIuZUoFYSi7H2tFJPpbKfQZWy3 O+2uOIfrapryth/rl6HyVEoXstcD4nABvGpnx2aYdCFI1MQ2c7QHkyMdytY/vPinI8m2 qupxNv5DVrIE8cBxFffTvxxV208rp9nEB02c0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=bdwA5dvMBRpU4CGHuzxJzaUwyRRf04fYajv3EGLGuwujfq06pGDD8kl8hGlG4HOc6X mTaZ06akrGHK2SjgzTH97KcJo2RG9hI3J7LvcdjyuCLv7phmK49CeTifw5hH8xmcRtGG OP6wJtdqc9kge3DoXYatW3XhQ2BM+T1Ccn1so= Received: by 10.210.91.7 with SMTP id o7mr1561360ebb.35.1243544964056; Thu, 28 May 2009 14:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm1023504eyx.13.2009.05.28.14.09.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 28 May 2009 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:09:18 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28 Message-ID: <20090528220918.05efd17f@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <200905282256.46827.patrick@gentoo.org> References: <1243489596.10450.24.camel@localhost> <200905282146.48457.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090528205249.3b830f5d@snowcone> <200905282256.46827.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/ybUV2IPM7cT=9zJnlpIVDse"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 6fdeb794-bbd6-43b0-adc2-638585b87012 X-Archives-Hash: ddd7f14d43954961edab3f725a65a21b --Sig_/ybUV2IPM7cT=9zJnlpIVDse Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 28 May 2009 22:56:46 +0200 Patrick Lauer wrote: > So, basically, we can't do anything, because the universe might > spontaneously decide to cease to exist. Quite scary, that.=20 No. What we do is don't design a fragile solution. We design a solution that can handle users doing what we reasonably expect users to do. > > No-one has provided a viable way of extending the version format > > that doesn't require EAPI changes. So unless you're talking about > > your "start a whole new tree" idea, > Wait, I thought noone had provided a way ... except that one ... > argh, cognitive dissonance detected.=20 >=20 > I'm sorry, you contradicted yourself. Please choose one option only. "Viable". > > No-one is suggesting making changes to match silly upstream > > versions. > But I thought you just said that silly and arbitrary restrictions ... > I am confused. You are in a quantum superposition state where you > support both sides of an argument and only collapse your brainwave > functions whenever someone tries to observe you or something ...=20 I said that allowing _rc but forbidding -rc was silly and arbitrary. > > What we are suggesting is making changes to match sensible and > > reasonable upstream versions. > > Which we already have. Excellent, so you agree that we don't need to > change versioning. Sometimes I really like discussing with you, > because after a long time you suddenly accept reason :) No, we don't allow 1.1-rc1, which is a sensible and reasonable upstream version. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/ybUV2IPM7cT=9zJnlpIVDse Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoe/YEACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHWoACdGHR1zhUAMbct9AlOHZFgxhIt F2gAniHzFGlzf8MXxtxyB6dtaAI4kwlb =ayW6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ybUV2IPM7cT=9zJnlpIVDse--