From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96A1138010 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A8C3E097D; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BE9EE0975 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from portable (AMontpellier-651-1-308-49.w92-133.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.133.67.49]) (using SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2282033DB84 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:21:04 +0200 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable Message-ID: <20130402162104.407ab0f1@portable> In-Reply-To: References: <515ACE47.3030206@gentoo.org> <20130402142933.2e76831c@portable> <515ACFDA.4090605@gentoo.org> <20130402143744.532b4ae8@portable> <20130402153403.0a85c0a7@portable> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9577762f-9153-4fcc-983d-0020268e82bd X-Archives-Hash: 8cf6aee13abec30f0c16f580ae9f9110 On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100 Markos Chandras wrote: > Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important > question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable". Nobody besides that part of the thread is arguing about anything like that. If you are upset about the endless debates on treecleaning, then I'm sorry for you but I was not part of any of them and didn't even read them. I believe you are interpreting what I wrote under this perspective: I seriously don't care if bash 3.1 goes away, it's been a while since I've not had it installed on any box. You seem to be thinking the contrary. > Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening > a public debate on this? I guess no, because > bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better. Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete BS ? I didn't. Alexis.