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 1JHkf3-0003SI-GS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:49:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D4D8E054B; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:48:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.21]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA99BE054B for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 01FEC2090BC for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:48:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (poseidon [139.174.2.21]) by poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F592090BB for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:48:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de (account wevah [139.174.197.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 29733580 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:48:02 +0100 From: "Hemmann, Volker Armin" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Daniel Robbins' come back ? Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:48:00 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <1200129071.4788842fc5816@imp.free.fr> <87ejcdcos7.fsf@newsguy.com> <20080123173559.GC16632@nibiru.local> In-Reply-To: <20080123173559.GC16632@nibiru.local> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801231948.00434.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V5.3 at tu-clausthal.de X-Archives-Salt: 93f5f156-4078-451f-81c1-f880e79d4264 X-Archives-Hash: f6711c90632a01854a84c0c7f41a54aa On Mittwoch, 23. Januar 2008, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * reader@newsguy.com wrote: > > I'd hazard a guess that you may have hit a bigger problem than your > > comment indicates. I'm pretty sure there would be great pressure to > > use `quick and dirty hacks' to get stuff done when devs are nearly > > always overworked. > > Actually, they IMHO *are*. Look at the large amount of patches in the > tree and the uncountable discussions which are not gentoo specific. > And the same happens also in other distros. An really large amount > of work could be done easily outside specific distros, but in an > more general way. > > But as long as the devs refuse cooperation with such distro-agnostic > (meta-)projects like OSS-QM, there aren't much changes for it > becoming better ;-P so your ranting is nothing but pushing your little pet project? Distro devs are working together already. When they discuss stuff on the upstream mls and send their patches there. Oh, and have you ever recognized, that a lot of gentoo patches come from other distros? No? -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list