From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HgRrG-00073t-R5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:43:31 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OKfHtJ012401; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:41:17 GMT Received: from nameserver1.mcve.com (nameserver1.mcve.com [216.155.111.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OKcsBf009419 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:38:55 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.55] (shop.monetra.com [216.155.111.10]) by nameserver1.mcve.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A2D1118091 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:38:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <462E6ADD.2050607@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:38:53 -0400 From: Doug Goldstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) 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] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E6582.4030408@gentoo.org> <200704242246.31795.kugelfang@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200704242246.31795.kugelfang@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id l3OKfHvG012401 X-Archives-Salt: e076f379-05dd-4fed-9e01-b7efa62be119 X-Archives-Hash: 95c49b73a699bfd9962a8821da681d60 Danny van Dyk wrote: > Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Petteri R=E4ty: > =20 >> Danny van Dyk kirjoitti: >> =20 >>> Hi all, >>> >>> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, >>> 2007] >>> >>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version >>> suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This >>> decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is >>> sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held. >>> >>> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for >>> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following >>> package versions are considered illegal: >>> =20 > > =20 >> What is the reason this needed an urgent decision? This was first >> added to the tree little under three months ago so why not just wait >> for the next council meeting? >> >> *alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234 (04 Feb 2007) >> >> 04 Feb 2007; Diego Petten=F2 >> +alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234.ebuild: >> Add a new snapshot required for kernel 2.6.20. >> =20 > > From my POV: > > * alsa version commited to the tree, > * mplayer version has been commited, > * alsa version has been removed, > * general discussion started on what combinations are allowed > * somewhere in between the transcode version was added > > My rationale was and is to stop people continueing to add such versions= =20 > w/o prior discussion. > > Danny > =20 If the decision needed to be made quickly after knowing about it for 3 months, there was clearly the opporunity to use the half-impromptu meetings as discussed last year (I believe October-ish) which requires a few days of advance and presence of at least six devs. That should not have been too difficult to use and allowed a little bit more time, warnings and discussion rather then a rush decision. --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list