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 1SiOgK-0006Xc-0M for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:39:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84D0DE0ACC; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:38:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from foo.stuge.se (foo.stuge.se [212.116.89.98]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42320E0AB0 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:38:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1642 invoked by uid 501); 23 Jun 2012 11:38:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20120623113809.1641.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:38:09 +0200 From: Peter Stuge To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20120621080039.0724cf8d@googlemail.com> <1340263510.2470.18.camel@belkin4> <20120621083945.345d661a@googlemail.com> <1340438017.5979.11.camel@belkin4> <20120623103833.6b9cb91e@googlemail.com> <20120623095326.25423.qmail@stuge.se> <1340447072.5979.33.camel@belkin4> <20120623113125.656d26c4@googlemail.com> <1340449551.5979.43.camel@belkin4> <20120623121422.6d47683a@googlemail.com> 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="KD3NH8oGZ7XN2Llp" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120623121422.6d47683a@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: d5975b31-4d25-4d1e-81e7-310610ba5987 X-Archives-Hash: 44c0b74bdc11179d728e0024e2b24ec6 --KD3NH8oGZ7XN2Llp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Making constructive suggestions instead of others that can be > > easily interpreted as whims is the way to go. >=20 > Uh huh, and that's what I've been doing the whole time when I've > been asking for a patch for PMS, a GLEP etc. =2E. > requests for a better description we're supposed to be looking at No, this isn't really constructive. As I wrote, try to drive the discussion by adding substance to it, rather than fueling flames by requesting others to refine. Since it is an area where you may be able to contribute, I think it would be great if you did! > are being met with complaints that we haven't magically done all > of the remaining work I think you're right that complaints are about your response, but I absolutely do not interpret the complaints to be that you personally or the PMS team did not implement the requested feature. I think that's a misunderstanding of yours. If you don't understand something of what thus far has been written, then why not ask specific questions to fill those gaps, and move on? //Peter --KD3NH8oGZ7XN2Llp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFP5aqhhR3Q0dhIfEgRAgvnAJ4qUPNzgTeo9ptwA/e58ve0myP+UQCg02+0 +ATSvwn8Isc6cQzc8f2u8kg= =533D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KD3NH8oGZ7XN2Llp--