From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j580QDpQ016404 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:26:13 GMT Received: from als2077-router1.science.oregonstate.edu ([128.193.220.20] helo=[192.168.123.189]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DfoP7-00020s-OA for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:26:45 +0000 Message-ID: <42A63B0B.9060206@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:25:47 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050415) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering References: <20050606222623.GI9084@kaf.zko.hp.com> <200506072232.36536.cryos@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5f4b1cd4-a7d6-426f-b335-d39f8c51e0e9 X-Archives-Hash: cafb2d27211c4eadddb60693151e9d13 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ferris McCormick wrote: > I also like alpha, but that is not what I am responding to. And I have > to admit that I haven't followed this too closely. But the "if one arch > stabalises..." assumption can be misleading. For example, xorg-x11 > maintainer arch is x86 (spyderous will correct me if I am wrong), but I > know of at least once instance in which sparc (and a few other archs) > were stable ahead of x86. > > Granted, spyderous knew what was going on and why, but for a few days > there, the "stabilises" rule of thumb with nothing more would have led > the unsuspecting reader to believe that maintainer arch for xorg was sparc. And this is the key, as usual: communication makes for happier devs. =) But if sparc had gone ahead and stabilized without discussing it with me, I would've been very pissed. I often have plans to add more stuff before it goes stable, and when that happens, I'm left with two options, both of which suck: * Yet another bump for the new stuff, requiring everybody on ~arch to recompile for things that often don't even affect them * Acting as if the ebuild were still in testing despite the other arch ignoring me and stabling it Thanks, Donnie -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCpjsLXVaO67S1rtsRAnGfAJ9TiSI3nAHnxL5WXNR44zyoXjOv7QCg7u4S vJgTrfKMuwxm9LWlu00ZKkk= =x8bR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list