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 1Rbr2q-0003z8-Ql for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:59:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F85121C219; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD8D21C1A2 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so6864828wgb.10 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:58:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rVcVTgCABVfrlpA9jGxR41jsl4Tm1R5sgf1eoTKX72Y=; b=atpRRiYLJb8+MMAJ8PZQ2U6elLu7btPg8sHGbi5evmD+TzVOzu1SNfFRNvgl74OOEX pZxOoRQwEeip1GMNZFGddXwIbwdi9IvFYaQ1sW3c0wSP9om1XfWpz7d3hniZpGQV0zkE iYjjq1+k0X1emn48FS+pYOlEjIordngPtjckw= Received: by 10.180.106.102 with SMTP id gt6mr17075492wib.24.1324115882553; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:58:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (188-221-166-114.zone12.bethere.co.uk. [188.221.166.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dy1sm16730848wib.18.2011.12.17.01.58.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:58:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: Markos Chandras Message-ID: <4EEC6731.30107@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:56:01 +0000 From: Markos Chandras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 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: =?UTF-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSBDaHbDoXRhbA==?= CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/libreoffice: ChangeLog libreoffice-3.4.99.1.ebuild libreoffice-3.5.0.0.ebuild References: <20111212174448.F09FC2004B@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <4EEBAB07.2010102@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 57e5c161-8def-4ea0-8154-a31c5f25125c X-Archives-Hash: d675ef06f91a4b767b90b18b8f1ca099 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 12/17/2011 09:34 AM, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > 2011/12/16 Markos Chandras : >> On 12/12/2011 05:44 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote: >>> scarabeus 11/12/12 17:44:48 >>>=20 >>> Modified: ChangeLog Added:=20 >>> libreoffice-3.4.99.1.ebuild Removed: libreoffice-3.5.0.0.ebuild >>> Log: Remove miss-named beta0. Add beta1 with better name >>> (presented as downgrade). >>>=20 >>> (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha80/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan >>> options: --force) >>>=20 >>> Revision Changes Path 1.216=20 >>> app-office/libreoffice/ChangeLog >>>=20 >> I know it is a bit late but do you think that commit made sense >> at that time? It is not the best user experience we can provide >> when beta releases appear as downgrades. FWIW beta releases >> should remain masked to avoid useless compilations to slow >> machines instead of digging through Changelogs to see what >> happened. Are the beta releases of libreoffice so critical that >> force you to keep them in the ~testing tree? >>=20 > They should be stable enough plus it helps a lot to catch all the=20 > bugs. Most of those Gentooers reported are being fixed and I think > it is better to test it during the beta cycle rather than start > messing with it after final release. >=20 > So if you don't want those ebuild in main tree just tell me so and > I can add only the releases (but then I won't care about the bugs > much as I do this fixes as part of the upstream QA and don't use > Gentoo [no worries I compile/runtime test it in the dev tinderbox > that has gentoo], so at the point of release I should be focusing > on master branch again). >=20 > Tom >=20 You misunderstood me. I don't object to beta ebuilds but I wonder if testing users want to have them by default. Maybe they should be masked by default and whoever wants the shiny stuff can always unmask them. Anyway not a big deal. I guess I belong to the minority of people who do own a single core PC in 2011 :) - --=20 Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJO7GcxAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCd3oQAMR8gUxPPu+tnPWkOmU5ZedK B7aCy09P2ecV/BvxDBf1wQOWDb19tpfXT15Rm486+pxkDovP0lhr8hbNklfHXbjE fB+2JYvEb5qf/zNePCNRc6LC/KaDurIx+z4RzFBOquoZbJM5Z6c8ya+w2q98YmtD DsB5y1jpq5Fs2eVNjDvmuzDjR0MoMPP1oE9Y0kU4D5ahpH03IdPbyCv/AjR/M3lb MRezGuRI7EQmrnBNdqZIJpUPHaCioxsyvIeVpw9gkprdQPC4olX8ASd90En41kA6 pnxK1+u1WYJKWJyCZrGROIlws8dBa/mKHn+E+SU10j4kLGIi6dYQGOghPC8g+yop 3E4kgDlJZnXTIpnCszrdkgoqWlDNzmToV6c0D6hvc9itG2aE8vwiSKXHQMp1Lxf7 RGF1/gxyojB9ExUhCwWK7jFBPqhrYb88CpU5fvLRGR8VQ5zq1pM3F5yNoPg4qYdD U7tUdwm6UPNc9p3QfLSW93FSV4MAEzXhOuj0Kmt9AMr0n+boKyzycm44wm1R31NM hXoX7bhxP4r2UPRXUJBO+3FGdcxrH4YkcZ3A5yXEV/LwkgtSKsJRzyA5/VQFZCkw Tt5wvXqRrjW51fVfeY3SU8q/Y0W1pu46Dd1C3Vc3jR1xW8uUegVVJNizmOdOC70y O7p/tIdyadV9aOjsSKUs =3DoIMb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----