From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4258C1396D9 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:19:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B504E0E3A; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A4F7E0E00 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:19:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-f41.google.com (mail-it0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE22733BF0B for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n134so415391itg.1 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:19:34 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6m8darF75WJwpMFrchET2Ip45mT3gK8qcsaWM2outpZn3VPrK4 taa7ZvWgKlqIm0JLBQA00cTGukCemCdfrDJoc0Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbW6lCONx6d1QSIuD8nYs9sG5mASz3DHFWSdxcKMgpr999DEL4WMvgevPlkHWoUmWBGJydmoL3eTqQNYoK6pxk= X-Received: by 10.36.112.69 with SMTP id f66mr220691itc.51.1511237972817; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:19:32 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.2.152.46 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:19:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Matt Turner Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:19:12 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes: validation of single hash per MANIFESTx_REQUIRED_HASH To: gentoo development Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: f6d21662-2c0e-49d6-b820-b8a3834ec9a5 X-Archives-Hash: ada242bee364345205a27253792c1782 On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:15 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: > What I wanted to avoid was something I encountered on the GCC mailing > list: When I asked why GCJ was removed, I was told that it was hard to > maintain. When I asked for an example of past maintenance issues (and > made it clear I had no interest in disputing whether the issues were > valid or not) I received no reply from the maintainer except his > original answer, leaving me to wonder whether GCJ was actually hard to > maintain. > > I have seen similar exchanges associated with other projects. When you have no standing in the project, there's little incentive to justify one's actions and decisions to you.