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 1OlPI4-0001q6-Iq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:45:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B7AFE0B35; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.39]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1F7E0AF6 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:45:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (atwork-106.r-212.178.112.atwork.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7HGj23B043735; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:45:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:44:58 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: weigelt@metux.de Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] OSS-QM again ... Message-ID: <20100817184458.1a75cf4d@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20100817155849.GA24806@nibiru.local> References: <20100817155849.GA24806@nibiru.local> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i686-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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: 713bf3e1-264c-42a0-840d-204bd2223443 X-Archives-Hash: aaa0b8d58ae046d40a360089a2389371 On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:58:49 +0200 Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > perhaps you remember the discussion of oss-qm + git-repos several > weeks ago. I remember a lacklustre discussion on this mailing list (sping was with you, a couple of others were at best discussing the shortcomings of your sig) and some rather strong objections from three developers to oss-qm patching elsewhere[1]. So I am considering whether the rest of your message constitutes spam. jer [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326991