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 1SDk5F-0007rf-Qv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:14:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AA702E0B18; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:13:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D77E0738 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:13:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com (mail-pz0-f52.google.com [209.85.210.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A857E1B400C for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:13:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dake40 with SMTP id e40so13226dak.11 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.217.97 with SMTP id ox1mr1266045pbc.81.1333145586278; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:13:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 10.68.189.167 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:12:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F762BCF.9010204@cs.stonybrook.edu> References: <20120330150041.c3f7684c.axel@james-b.ch> <4F75B45F.2050108@gentoo.org> <4F76226B.1020507@gentoo.org> <4F762BCF.9010204@cs.stonybrook.edu> From: Matt Turner Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:12:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance) To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 621cc1cb-7cfd-42e9-9795-4a95e46ff501 X-Archives-Hash: 5c2df76e19fae9a3f3f59210980c8af4 On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 03/30/12 17:15, Joshua Kinard wrote: >> Maybe it's time for Gentoo-2.0? > > I think we should wait for Portage 2.2 to be stabilized before we > declare Gentoo 2.0. @preserved-libs is enough of an advance that I think > claiming 2.0 would be merited, if only for the attention it would draw > at Phoronix. We don't want that kind of attention.