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 1MEdxD-0007tW-4s for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:40:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 553FBE052C; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:40:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BDBE052C for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:40:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7D564F36 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:40:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.956 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.956 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.643, 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 F0UXup0kyznI for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:39:54 +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 E162964194 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:39:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MEdwu-0004hT-8i for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:39:44 +0000 Received: from ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.21.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:39:44 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:39:44 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Council Reminder for June 11 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1244672097.3388.1@NeddySeagoon> <1244673453.6190.46.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> <20090610234403.58bc6587@snowcone> 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: ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 49fd03b2-9ee4-4df3-ba2a-f9fd97b0048a X-Archives-Hash: 038d0c52ea8fa5a0d56ee95a3e6247c3 Ciaran McCreesh posted 20090610234403.58bc6587@snowcone, excerpted below, on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:44:03 +0100: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:37:33 +0200 > Tobias Scherbaum wrote: >> Putting in a wait for 4 or 8 weeks or whatever doesn't cost us anythin= g >> but does simplify things and gives us a clear deployment process. >=20 > It loses us reasonably wide testing of Portage's implementation in > ~arch. I'd rather not see Portage go stable with an EAPI before that > EAPI's been tested in the main tree for packages that are used by a hal= f > decent number of ~arch users. Extremely good point. As an unreformed ~arch user with the scars to prove it, I know I'm a=20 tester for a lot of this stuff and relish the opportunity. =3D:^) But=20 there's been times I've shuddered at the thought of something I've dealt=20 with hitting stable and I'm sure I'm not an exception in that regard, so=20 anything that would lose us that valuable testing buffer had better have=20 a VERY good reason. --=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