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 4.43) id 1EEpJB-0006SB-Qc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:29:22 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8CEOHtW014821; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:24:17 GMT Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz (gw.top-hosting.cz [81.0.254.91]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8CEMTHx017316 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:22:29 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BC49E9B79 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:26:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (wac [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 24680-01 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:26:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [82.99.172.218] (unknown [82.99.172.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11FB9BD0FC for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:26:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:26:37 +0200 From: Jakub Moc X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <613013693.20050912162637@gentoo.org> To: Chris Gianelloni Subject: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date In-Reply-To: <1126533798.455.23.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> References: <1126447110.10560.13.camel@localhost> <1126484067.10558.83.camel@localhost> <20050912012514.43ef63ee@snowdrop.home> <200509121356.02558.carlo@gentoo.org> <1126533798.455.23.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="----------2117CD49C2A710" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.2 (20050629) at top-hosting.cz X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.144 tagged_above=-999 required=6 tests=[AWL=-0.063, BAYES_50=0.001, PRIORITY_NO_NAME=1.097, WEIRD_PORT=0.109] X-Spam-Level: * X-Archives-Salt: a8ee34ff-1ddf-4bbf-b91f-e00bb9a19d7a X-Archives-Hash: e3b09c4bf4902ff306c57ccfa1aeed3b ------------2117CD49C2A710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D=0A12.9.2005, 16:03:17, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Many users seem to think that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree > with them, for the most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them = that > they won't be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that = we > are not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the cas= e. http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/mw-faq/wontfix.txt Telling them that the ebuild "won't be included as-is" pretty much equals WONTFIX, except for the major disadvantage that is can't be tracked via Bugzilla at all... not so much fun really, considering there are over 600 n= ew ebuild bugs there. --=20 Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:jakub@gentoo.org GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0xCEB= A3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) ------------2117CD49C2A710 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFDJZAdhxfV/c66PZ4RAqUwAKCdZ5ViweL+wbVb2bPt1qkYCkG4KQCgpexM NOzNAqSmPPlnb8/uwCTaGNU= =FIHS -----END PGP MESSAGE----- ------------2117CD49C2A710-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list