On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:55:34 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski <st...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > The complaint is slow to stable arches Yes. > by specifying "-* arch" it would signify that ONLY that arch uses > that version of the ebuild - and it would be up to the arch team to > remove it once they've stabled the new version - and considering the > complaint is only about slow arches, there's nothing additional to > specify in there - it's REMOVING arches that have stabled a newer > version already, so they are unaffected. As this is a suggestion that is made by someone else, whom I have already replied to stating this is a world apart from the discussion in this thread; I am skipping this entire paragraph, I think you meant to send the reply to the other person with his/her post as In-Reply-To. > On the other hand, you're suggesting that we don't actually bother > with stabling things or actually testing that things are properly > stable, allowing anyone to decide when something is stable, whether > they have access to the hardware to actually test that it works. This is missing reference, and thus I doubt if that is my suggestion. Looking back at the entire context of this thread, I have made several "ideas" as various options; which was done as to feed the discussion to consider several viewpoints. > You and a few others keep talking in the theoretical This thread is based on an actual problem. > while I've shown an actual problem but you and the others > conveniently ignore ACTUAL problems in favor of your possible > problems. Please stop. Well, as seen on #gentoo-dev you shoot down solutions. Please consider. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
