From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kzx1F-00061K-VE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:27:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF632E03CD; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:27:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DD7E03CD for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:27:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF29064F95 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:27:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.934 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.934 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.665, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZyCzpP-+LJGs for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BBA64FB8 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:27:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Kzx11-0004oH-O3 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:26:59 +0000 Received: from ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.99.190]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:26:59 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:26:59 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com> <4918D0BC.50202@gentoo.org> <4918DE04.8010207@gentoo.org> <49195BFA.7060404@gentoo.org> <20081111172450.04e02b38@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> 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 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b3a7b6b3-f9a8-436d-9582-c40796de5f02 X-Archives-Hash: a975252e3292496a04e65cff5d365548 Jeroen Roovers posted 20081111172450.04e02b38@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net, excerpted below, on Tue, 1= 1 Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100: > Words > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily > to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a single person's. Yes, but it's a relative thing. They obviously do what they can with the= =20 resources they have (are willing to dedicate). We do the same. A user's= =20 single system will absolutely be important to him, no doubt about it, but= =20 if he doesn't believe it worth "superhuman" feats or prioritizing to=20 ensure it's safety, neither should we. No, we don't go around=20 purposefully breaking things, but both he and we have limits to our=20 resources and certain priorities in their allocation, and if he's not=20 placing undue priority on the safety of his machine, why is it even a=20 question if we will? The presumption should be actions within the bounds= =20 of rational reality and prioritization of resources for both users and=20 their distribution, us. No more, no less. IOW, I'd have agreed if the point was that it's a machine that's useful=20 to the user and that he doesn't want broken, and we should behave=20 accordingly, but the triple emphasis of important, production, critical,=20 seemed a bit undue for the lengths to which an ordinary user goes or the=20 priority he reveals by his own actions. And if his actions reveal a=20 SERIOUS priority in the area, than he's already covered by definition. =20 That's all I was saying. --=20 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