From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mxq1I-0003ET-PM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:39:04 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AE86E0831; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:39:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from md2.t-2.net (md2.t-2.net [84.255.209.81]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E71E0831 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:39:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.110] (84-255-203-94.static.t-2.net [84.255.203.94]) by md2.t-2.net (MOS 3.10.8-GA) with ESMTP id EXZ25151; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:39:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4AD51E4F.1090105@avtomatika.com> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:41:51 +0200 From: Branko Badrljica User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree References: <200910091957.09193.zzam@gentoo.org> <4AD4E907.5060405@gentoo.org> <4AD50E47.1080106@avtomatika.com> <200910131815.52307.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200910131815.52307.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Junkmail-Status: score=50/150, host=md2.t-2.net X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=bulk(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0209.4AD4F17E.0160,ss=3,sh,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2009-09-21 22:56:10, dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false X-Archives-Salt: 2b74ba20-34d6-4904-9b80-86ca80aaa621 X-Archives-Hash: a4e3345fe9d7b4b1d2357809d8bb0af6 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is no > excuse. blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead of > pinning a specific version and then expecting a stable system isnt going to > happen. Thomas is absolutely right here. > > Well, if eh is absolutely right, then I won't argue anymore. But just as an notice, I didn't expect STABLE but at least DOCUMENTED system ? Is that too much to ask ? And even if I did a mistake of keywording openrc-0* instead of openrc-0.4-r3, do I really deserve such knife in the back ? Having some reasonable safety margin is base of sanity. Your PSU is galvanicaly insulated, but law demands that housing of your PC be connected to earth potential in case of insulation failing. Had that been done by Gentoo community courts would be full of cases of "unreasonable dead jerks who should be grateful"... > documentation doesnt write itself. this isnt directed specifically at you, > but clamoring "gimme gimme gimme" is more likely to get people to tell you to > toss off than get what you want. And who should write documentation for new code ? Unreasonable users that find it not working or perhaps authors ? While I recognise the fact that Gentoo is not commercial distro, I want also some recognition for value of my time as a passive tester. I am happy to give what I can, but I expect at least some basic foundations for that. Having documentation about public changes at least for me falls well within that category. At least for me, even otherwise useful changes can have NEGATIVE value, if they gob heaps of my time totally unnecesarilly and total lack of documentation is on top of the list of best ways to piss on masses.