From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742DA138247 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CEC77E0B32; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6678E0B15 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.78.108.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B58033F22F for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52855F6B.4070305@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:40:27 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130426 Thunderbird/17.0.5 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] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask References: <20131113151012.04145837@gentoo.org> <5283948F.1000409@gentoo.org> <52841023.9010208@gentoo.org> <20131114061328.09136f6f@gentoo.org> <5284BC18.5000702@gentoo.org> <52851F7B.4090007@gentoo.org> <20131114193524.3923bf78@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20131114193524.3923bf78@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 994acb66-8998-433c-991f-4b479752efdb X-Archives-Hash: 643b1d01fa21f4ce5585a1269d9edebf On 11/15/2013 03:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:07:39 +0100 > Thomas Sachau wrote: >> - multilib-portage was planned to add features with a future EAPI >> version, so in the end needs agreement from maintainers of package >> managers, the pms team and the council. If anyone from those groups >> only claims "you wrote so much, but i dont understand it, write >> more", then it can be a very long time to get it into the main tree >> (also this usually means it is well reviewed and tested) > > That's only a problem if you've got a horribly complicated feature > where you can't remember yourself what you changed to make it work or > how or why you implemented it. > ... or if people shift the goalpost so much that you don't even remember what game is being played