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 D83D21387FD for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 11:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F220E0B9B; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 11:47:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EA65E0B73 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 11:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.188.44.151] (85-76-160-238-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.160.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 429E933FD5F for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 11:47:07 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <533BF766.5010509@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:41:26 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 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: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev References: <5335EE26.1010606@gentoo.org> <20140402102827.037f2e9c@gentoo.org> <533BCA68.10703@gentoo.org> <201404021245.45076.dilfridge@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201404021245.45076.dilfridge@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a4ff2403-49ac-4377-9c7e-f02f18c2dd14 X-Archives-Hash: 115de2bb2ecae5c26b3f52d7511e222d On 02/04/14 13:45, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2014, 10:29:28 schrieb Samuli Suominen: >> On 02/04/14 11:28, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:00:19 +0300 >>> >>> Samuli Suominen wrote: >>>> On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote: >>>>> You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being used >>>>> as an offensive weapon. It's a stick to bludgeon others with. >>>> Exactly. Anyone remembers what happened the last time this was tried? >>>> >>>> [...] >>> What does the previous QA team's actions have to do with this topic? >> It's the previous QA team's actions and mistakes we can learn from. >> You know, to avoid repeating them. >> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you one of these QA team members, Samuli? > Yes, the situation was different in a sense that QA members themself disagreed back then, which lead to the back then lead removing members (not only me) without even notifying them from the membership list. So, I have pretty good insight how bad things could go... - Samuli