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 854AB13828B for ; Sat, 28 May 2016 18:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E959142D6; Sat, 28 May 2016 18:40:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DE151420D for ; Sat, 28 May 2016 18:40:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b6jAC-0005b1-2t for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 28 May 2016 20:40:44 +0200 Received: from ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net ([98.167.165.199]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 28 May 2016 20:40:44 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 28 May 2016 20:40:44 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: What are eblits? Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 18:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.141 (Tarzan's Death; GIT 5ca29ba90) X-Archives-Salt: e255db5b-73a2-475e-afe6-00903d89166a X-Archives-Hash: 349e4bde1a208b7fb3998c6ac5a16a5a Kent Fredric posted on Sat, 28 May 2016 17:07:56 +1200 as excerpted: > Which is a rather bad combination of pressures. > > Hence, eblits as they currently exist are experts-only and a big > danger ground for QA violations *to occur within*, even under the > presumption that they're not inherently a QA violation in themselves. Thanks. You well explained the details of /why/ eblits are experts-only, that I deliberately fuzzed over in my first thread reply. Now I understand them better myself. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman