From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BB38138334 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 20:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B1A8E077D; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 20:08:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFDE4E0636 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 20:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from katipo2.lan (unknown [203.86.205.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kentnl) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D87A634A6FE for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 20:08:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:08:16 +1200 From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/ Message-ID: <20190906080816.7cba3acf@katipo2.lan> In-Reply-To: <2f49bf393b04f1b514817317c2ea12f8e8e586df.camel@gentoo.org> References: <1567619929.63486fef43c2e0dee3b4128db18fd1a6b4bf9381.tupone@gentoo> <6221fceb9ac4f3451a3a43e39141102f489a830d.camel@gentoo.org> <1860939b-1751-061d-c593-59deb20f05e7@gentoo.org> <7dd9f947-b3b1-a685-29df-0a59a19ebcbe@gentoo.org> <2f49bf393b04f1b514817317c2ea12f8e8e586df.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/zdS=i2q3hkMyFnawSUS=QgN"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-Archives-Salt: 62c39c19-f972-4e2a-b1b7-9d69b8b9a2c2 X-Archives-Hash: e49e58d4786cd2227ec02771de2af780 --Sig_/zdS=i2q3hkMyFnawSUS=QgN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:47:11 +0200 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > So to summarize, instead of working together in order to follow a well- > established policy, You're reading it wrong. If its "established policy", dev manual must reflect that. If the dev-manual writes "should" in one place, and implies "must" in another for a same thing, then either: - The dev manual needs to be fixed - The policy is not as you suggest it is. If the dev-manual is written correctly for the policy, then I expect he is saying he'll follow it. But as per the way the dev manual is written, he arguably *is* following policy. Stop taking the line of assuming he's trying to be belligerent.=20 --Sig_/zdS=i2q3hkMyFnawSUS=QgN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEgdrME8Lrmai3DXYJda6SGagVg7UFAl1xazAACgkQda6SGagV g7UVBhAAjrn40uvtpzYp2zKk3skwLN9Y7fcTmPs77fY7HLlJr1qJ8Kx6I22mji5b AUhHtOQujnhEYwYlsPf2dG0mfC+acWHoFpfXN6MpeRcyD/9DTyVAMmPc2A/DpAzN kVnCtmpD6gQvcmqx1pZHxPbOoXgK5tj+Aoa0zu+JJWSENuLlcdaL7CzRNX4mQaVj dPdRpXci0rHoCyvoV3VWfEfKZwSOt939KN01IVIzdlwDfyMSjEJr2Rv5ugFbg/2K YTvgFvOtwf60ov65T1kWFgtxnPSLFPjUEnjU58g7EeLbJkr4x9P9DZDm/Mf7TY75 fes8S5eX03FcuTVyNd4nUPRmOE45WHeWzBTBL75E1uthE7V3HBwu5s07emMxLerK COsO0rRPLAjH0+Q1SZJ9zCx8IwmTTeN6EifV1XGVmIEX6Jidpwk5dJHfmoov+UFz cSGkl42Q5mf2ZmsyaE6T+dxqTg9AYfg9BmHE10aWAsq0aUJ/Ffe5rG1n6p/gW8OI 4DBdxtI9OGZESXVOMpP7zPPp3Ykcm66F+6QQet+jZAHJyeAUs2xWsQDCr70tRpBe dPMOQE2dUiR4BJTQ/RT2ruB/mi//5E1gVEWI6oPnLY8bXjMK2NXf0rpCFUX5jJYF qI5DAHPAhu6srow9FKH0Qal3z68jLcAh85+I2cIYef9UYTdj8K8= =zH7/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/zdS=i2q3hkMyFnawSUS=QgN--