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 E9F8E1380DC for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:57:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17971E0ADC; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from andre.telenet-ops.be (andre.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074DDE0AD1 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:57:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by andre.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id NUxF1n00G2khLEN01UxFDY; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 05:57:15 +0100 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 05:55:44 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords Message-ID: <20140205055544.6c3affea@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <1391570147.3520.7.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> References: <52E7DBC1.5020102@gentoo.org> <20140128182304.7d458a17@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140203104341.2add2760@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140204210319.GA1935@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140205010833.1bcf8dca@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391559808.3520.2.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205020742.048cef9f@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391564122.3520.4.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205024806.7d08cb63@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391570147.3520.7.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; 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: 24a11bdd-405f-4c9c-af65-258774a66215 X-Archives-Hash: 39d3f909813537a018112449cbf0b2a7 On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600 > > Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > > > > > Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having > > > something working we should just remove ebuilds of working > > > packages. > > > > s/should/could/ s/ebuilds/stable keyword or last stable version/ > > > > It is at the maintainer's discretion; and such decision is to make > > it possible for a maintainer to move on when he or she can no longer > > guarantee a working ebuild, to stop being progress-blocked by it. > > > > You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. Why is this pure and utter bullshit? > Keeping it around for "slower" arches does NOT block progress. Why is keeping it around for "slower" arches not blocking progress? > I have intimate knowledge with what ACTUALLY happens when people pull > this bullshit - and that is a system that I can no longer actually > work on. That is also what happens when a maintainer keeps around old versions, as well as old bugs and support for those old versions; as by doing so, the attention towards newer versions is lost which causes much huger breakage than the one you have just brought up. Manpower is limited. > And instead of working towards a fix that actually works > for people who are ACTUALLY affected by the shitty policy, you hide > behind definitions and pedantry. Why do you think this about the current and/or suggested solution(s)? > I'm now going to take a break from Gentoo development because this > thread has seriously caused my blood to boil based on comments from > the peanut gallery (you) where things don't actually affect your day > to day work, but your actions do affect mine. Why? How and why are your actions affected by the QA team's actions? -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D