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 0DED3138B43 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:26:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CBBE1E0CB3; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:26:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5201E0C8D for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id wp18so2673193obc.36 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:26:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=D4IO3QQIiHnx/bLA5lqHrTR79gqp9waZj+xtO+IBkWk=; b=Wbhly4ExXVR74E2UXc0/jbEc2zYk/l1YbzcdBKIeiky73MpK5/ShLzayrfvPY5XKKF OQwS4aIKSPdveOwWAuUVolqlUOXVC0n7IuGqxXD9zhn+QtNKcoZEaLEOcJT8Aruh4zbl 88M7YXt9dIDYHIfL/FR85ARaJbTlJdjKlUPGfWf5ehKxQ/EGCAjtZYLeVptFwhnJQoEn XiE9nl+YPo5OKBa2bNmQpuBquGM7Bh9fdA2iDWcI6UuDdwa2Aazb3iiv8HJ8E6EGHksq ic1bRZabIEmNL0kbfIKnQiv/Nt+8lNIl3ewRwK6F52k7GmHxIHIWp2p7q3dkesF2D+Ei czfw== X-Received: by 10.182.180.51 with SMTP id dl19mr8607586obc.23.1391711164994; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id lh7sm9975825oeb.6.2014.02.06.10.26.01 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:26:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:26:08 -0600 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:26:08 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords Message-ID: <20140206182608.GA1299@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <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> <20140205055544.6c3affea@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391616442.3160.6.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205224815.70832b2d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52F2B594.5050500@gentoo.org> <20140206014838.054be1ab@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> 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="pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140206014838.054be1ab@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 1f9251c6-c5d7-4151-823a-43758c4022fd X-Archives-Hash: a2dffb298a95e1c98777475ca0e738bf --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:48:38AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500 > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: >=20 > > >=20 > > > Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old > > > versions sink all your time really stops progress to a dead halt. > > >=20 > >=20 > > Your logic isn't flawed here, it's entirely missing. If version Y is > > stable on all arches but one, and that version is still using version > > X that doesn't affect any of the other arches at all. >=20 > Can this be proven? Why are maintainers like WilliamH upset about this? >=20 > Reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90063 I was mostly upset because of the appearance of inaction by the arch teams. In my specific case, it wasn't the arm guys I was talking about [1]. arm was stable within the first month of adding to the bug. I was very concerned because of how long this bug sat in the stable queue with no action being taken, especially since other important packages depended on it. William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.dgi?id=3D487332 --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEUEARECAAYFAlLz08AACgkQblQW9DDEZTicWgCeIASQlnM4ylYjIfe6tBHcLg8T 4Q0Al1X7xcPa5F+1lmg1lOl8esODXhk= =qlxX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt--