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 1NzqRp-000836-Kq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:03:01 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 68C5AE0857; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pw0-f53.google.com (mail-pw0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4982BE0648 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pwj10 with SMTP id 10so1651057pwj.40 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 05:02:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zge9JGEorH/508W8VMLlFHMp72bPrOW9EnHCAxOhAcA=; b=dFrzLvx7gq4JsCHG+GvJ43Nhb29G7Ae+KtXDghfLzOjQ5FppUzLSk+5GIDIg5gmsX/ wqfaplkR2rQhB/8/BKG9XpLpcuI7BOta1DtHvh1abRLjK/M4K209dnIJ4y56fb+ptNLv 80oudStoUHzpc0JE0Zy0OfqUsBykDAPQIaVD0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=C+4kaBXaH+KEQwifTG8+IS9Vn26tusDApxTFpHpnCIeo0c83oQQ8AX2n81ffc40QGS 89moWy8ewz6hEokbHgDw6jxdAkqz76Djns/D0WRz7Y5+My0eoBQaw8iwx+VCjBRZVj9S 2pPm/kDel/MnQTorCMtV3TsApkQn0Z0fprGME= Received: by 10.115.85.21 with SMTP id n21mr26114wal.111.1270728148110; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 05:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-67-171-128-62.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.171.128.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm1288pzk.12.2010.04.08.05.02.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 08 Apr 2010 05:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 08 Apr 2010 05:02:25 -0700 Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:02:25 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010 Message-ID: <20100408120225.GG10006@hrair> References: <19388.19166.779165.480708@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> 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; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WlEyl6ow+jlIgNUh" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19388.19166.779165.480708@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 1d81f9d6-4e45-4df8-a1e3-43bdd5233649 X-Archives-Hash: 60239f40d18bef927f7e917629735b7a --WlEyl6ow+jlIgNUh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 11:05:34AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Next monthly council meeting will be at 19 April 2010, 18:00 UTC > in #gentoo-council. >=20 > If you have any topics you want us to discuss or even vote about, > simply followup to this message. VALID_USE- http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_b0e868626019f497eba47194c34e5421.= xml Historically, no PMS change has been glep'ified, but if the council=20 wants PMS changes to start being glep'd I'd be willing to guinea pig=20 this one- earliest I'd have the glep out the door is saturday also. Few additional notes to the proposal- 1) few has offered up his time patch wise. 2) if he backs out, I'll throw in a gurantee of having it done prior=20 to the next council meeting (realistically I can do it faster, I just=20 have other fish I'd like to be frying). 3) dev feedback generally has been positive, exempting ciaran's views=20 on it- please review those (if you'd like a summation I can provide=20 one). 4) if there are questions re: use cycle breaking or other bits, feel=20 free to ask prior please- council meeting times unfortunately right=20 now intersect badly with my paying work so it's hard to be online to=20 answer questions during the meeting (that said per the norm I'll try). 5) final reminder- part of the impetus of this is that if this is=20 punted till EAPI5, it forces pkg_pretend as the interim use constraint=20 checking- this has some nasty implications on the use cycle breaking=20 intentions since it would require everyone to upgrade their ebuilds to=20 EAPI5 if they've got use state constraints. Basically screws things=20 up a bit and requires a potentially pointless EAPI bump for the sake=20 of trying to knock EAPI4 out the door now (regardless of how long it=20 takes to stable portage for it) rather than adding a few weeks in. Thanks- ~harring --WlEyl6ow+jlIgNUh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAku9xdEACgkQsiLx3HvNzgdi1gCfUskancWcIwNLzGTvJWn0yUPr d5QAmgMD223HqbM1vLyjJ2nFKn0iJdk4 =StMA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WlEyl6ow+jlIgNUh--