From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-15398-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: (qmail 12329 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 02:07:27 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Sep 2004 02:07:27 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C2KX0-0005qD-LJ for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:07:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 15748 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2004 02:07:25 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 20989 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 02:07:25 +0000 Message-ID: <41352F55.2010107@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:09:25 -0400 From: Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040811) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0408241907500.31215@stargazer.weeve.org> <200408261651.43401.carlo@gentoo.org> <20040826160403.26f779f4@snowdrop.home> <200408261730.11098.carlo@gentoo.org> <20040826163326.5bd1e08d@snowdrop.home> <412E0BA8.5090904@gentoo.org> <1093957638.26445.23.camel@rivendell> In-Reply-To: <1093957638.26445.23.camel@rivendell> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS X-Archives-Salt: 9048186b-a7dd-4cbb-8858-d40627a697e3 X-Archives-Hash: e6b17393365e2fc2d930d1fdbbd58305 foser wrote: > If you really are clinging on to examples to make a point I could > probably fish more than 1 (!) up where both of your arches were running > with known bugged versions because of your liberal views on marking > stable. if by bugged you mean versions that work? > I find it ironic that you who are so keen on pointing out that something > was broken in x86 gnome and obviously knew about it all this time, > failed to inform us during that period. there was an open bug report. would you have liked us to file duplicates? > I'd appreciate it if you guys stopped distorting the facts to > consolidate your own QA-hurting policy of moving beyond the maintainers who are you to talk about QA hurting? just take a look at: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24439 you even have the portage devs screaming at you there. > arch. It's not serving the community you are pretending to be part of in > any way and I had hoped you'd be more mature than this. Don't play it on > examples that fit your views, the sheer lack of it actually makes your > case even weaker than it was. > > - foser well i'm pretty sure i shouldnt be taking QA advice from the gnome team. that and the bug i mention is quite an interesting read. i'd say my case for not paying attention to a single word you say would indeed be quite strong. Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list