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 1MEWWg-0004Wn-Ix for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:44:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 960CBE04D3; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:44:09 +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 5B20DE04D3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so1148911ewy.34 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:44:08 -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=i6viP/zAInVukXWQi07KK12NJppqUbL+iZ65HMBE5XI=; b=V9ZNR4p+QM8o+5D19ZJPXOowNIuIRxnKw3YsP1EWoP0WYbhWaZwP1qPgmulOoqblOs 9fTEilAxBKPwB+khWT0zZlz1ESuDEnhvrdIW+23Yc99jL6cOfR0mI0TTi1Ceq0kiORHg AfVlwBYP1qlG++NYSziTuNcyKS/JDFyg7+a6A= 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=yB7rKFkS24Kn6d9xWnQ/06H8Tu980+h8HD1x+/gMH1aAP48vLL8KXMTWToX0zf7q10 G5NlIPNWvpRhdcXE1HBUNmdj/zwb8Nt/K6tj/YOqrVdLTQqTJVYXPyLVgwFpHcCzU+7H yu9uNaDwEMqLUp7Ys5JdlUtEvMEFaAL0bgwJk= Received: by 10.210.109.10 with SMTP id h10mr5018431ebc.67.1244673848708; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:44:08 -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 24sm117650eyx.33.2009.06.10.15.44.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:44:03 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for June 11 Message-ID: <20090610234403.58bc6587@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <1244673453.6190.46.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> References: <1244672097.3388.1@NeddySeagoon> <1244673453.6190.46.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> 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_/lPVc=mfJywZ.pWTnipVpDEQ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: d3fda093-1443-46b4-9f6a-a10b740bd29b X-Archives-Hash: 643a24262c8f0e5351eb70356a34beb2 --Sig_/lPVc=mfJywZ.pWTnipVpDEQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:37:33 +0200 Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > Putting in a wait for 4 or 8 weeks or whatever doesn't cost us > anything but does simplify things and gives us a clear deployment > process.=20 It loses us reasonably wide testing of Portage's implementation in ~arch. I'd rather not see Portage go stable with an EAPI before that EAPI's been tested in the main tree for packages that are used by a half decent number of ~arch users. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/lPVc=mfJywZ.pWTnipVpDEQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkowNzUACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHPrACZAVE3/8RYjlXatZBPdqMDIget aFsAn0O9/JWXfiNEVPsIEwGjhqpOovct =WZCt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/lPVc=mfJywZ.pWTnipVpDEQ--