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 1MxrZ1-0001pi-6n for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:18:01 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C3A5E07BB; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5666DE07BB for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vapier.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E2BB4D66 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:17:56 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:17:53 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.31; KDE/4.3.1; x86_64; ; ) References: <200910091957.09193.zzam@gentoo.org> <4AD4E907.5060405@gentoo.org> <20091013163052.11d25cec@angelstorm> In-Reply-To: <20091013163052.11d25cec@angelstorm> 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; boundary="nextPart3437454.n2ztV1iTcj"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200910132017.54281.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 87b688e8-f42f-41de-bd86-4da108ba13de X-Archives-Hash: 84c2d5bd0dad2234082ed407e9532a7b --nextPart3437454.n2ztV1iTcj Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote: > All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to > magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* > . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 > team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing > up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?! we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone. we're talking=20 about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only=20 available in unstable. expecting everything in testing to be documented up= =20 front is unreasonable. no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be documented,= =20 just that complete user friendly coverage is not a requirement for unstable= =2E =20 your comments here dont really apply to bleeding edge -- they certainly app= ly=20 to stable though. this code doesnt even really appear to be documented upstream [1], so it se= ems=20 only Roy knows the magic sauce atm. 1: http://roy.marples.name/archives/openrc-discuss/2009/0040.html =2Dmike --nextPart3437454.n2ztV1iTcj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJK1RiyAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WB75UQAK2kSlMpj0jZIQJ80OQdEqlu /7pcJTwNqOcUD5dhZFDZpkyqbonmzJLgovg0Pnw/TdwLStD4nRnyvLbPDoOQT3SZ bfMq1Zluz9gQjq4ZvS/PX+BYNAD/Qde5WvxbPg70OWH51UaCTMrtiDg7WScrzw/e vYn1lJO/7v2hhEv7P/v6vJiKZFCo60qVMeicLk4yNzslT1M1ta7iI5w0na8n07XD AP4n+ZqUhRZgUxiOGWhx79j0EMb4bnOpbndtmxEXhHbFglAjuWZtFbXmftVjlMLy CmWwcenty9apZ4C0RRUzyUJZGnugqyCoUvLFnm9PCZaNN68+GMX/0jZlLgdsW9bu aoYKay5p/CV2ONTt9e05xdei+JegkXbThztCrF2F9RzZCA2McNmC0+K9Axv9jjWw 9C82vppGZHVwah9t1hPBYdjXNvaF7w3ZQVIKFeQHMyjAfJkghN2pRi+/fe+nSrVb xNep2VSfVNAj/qM4HXRRN1kelv2O2hjmSMPKX7l5+JTcD85Sg/6GoV3/3pycsRAk n0zSc12jOQfC39EpLk/gHJTh7ppjVT88oGlxHEwf77lkjoLzlxp5OxHRTiapv972 Z8TSXGsLMhiUAVqbG0QvKRhrdOH+G4TH66BLKg9UbQdsRQHDM7ZhY/+mDU91/Hy9 iEwwPmZTcwUoNatrodbr =0t5d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3437454.n2ztV1iTcj--