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 06DD2138B5C for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF1A7E08F1; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:29:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com [209.85.213.178]) (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 3B17AE08C8 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:29:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so17789033igb.1 for ; Mon, 06 Apr 2015 03:29:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YTF9EeAEYy9rGaizRrqC0AxfDavDHcM3fFYagupcJHM=; b=wGL3/zqjb9LUIlQRjVAcjp6cEE26Z+JkoXvNKRju6LDJYk88/dM9bGQa9pAeygu5Ay ybKval9f4fpn85iVVBbldVkdcMtSygaN7v3nAUCy7KJj1XwuL8fMriqv5a4K3PKVm7F+ oTZjOYFOYf7AmRvjFFiLBcr9p9p8j8KFCgn03Nqg4nQAG0RP87Q44x/ebqSGMvAuzlmn ivHRxtbMEsZqo8r8l7QuRlgepe0QsPn1d4VEVarMc6pFtYYNa2cL+SXUUa5H+z/ZhAMm hcex4t+IskLKxBcdCpJ7xpuMKC8kR2hMzPEES1Xq5ebt7rmT5okjUExoHdh1G5vAL8yl xy2g== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.38.17 with SMTP id m17mr20912184iom.84.1428316195514; Mon, 06 Apr 2015 03:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.48.198 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 03:29:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150406095922.19036ce2@pomiot.lan> References: <20150402141428.GA31638@oregano.home.lan> <201504032214.01310.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20150404220205.GA415@linux1> <1428237147.22472.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20150405195044.GA2917@linux1> <20150406002706.4aff7e4dda27a25a5c106b50@gentoo.org> <20150406023841.46e7491f7c76925908446de5@gentoo.org> <20150406095922.19036ce2@pomiot.lan> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 06:29:55 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: uxGHaxN3FOHutgtdanbkHGj6D7c Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Andrew Savchenko Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: a6e7a725-eae1-442e-a9c8-4426bd044dcd X-Archives-Hash: 62fe1734b71c52e0e50c25718f76a260 On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > > And so far, nobody but me and Patrick basically cared about dependency > graph not being broken. > Don't assume discussion of alternatives is equivalent to not caring. The reasons for not breaking the depgraph were fairly well articulated - it doesn't really add much to repeat them. Personally I'm leaning more towards making the entire arches non-stable, but I'd still prefer to have a policy that can be applied across all archs, and it doesn't make sense to make all archs non-stable. --=20 Rich