Steven J. Long wrote:
>
> collect your thoughts into a forum post
You are right: Not everybody on this list is interested in all
technical details, so it is perhaps better to shift this discussion
to the forums. I have opened the topic
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7593700.html#7593700
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
Please set your client not to include email addresses (for publically
web-archived newsgroups.)
> >> > It will probably also cause confusion for comaintainers and
> >> > collaborators, especially when INSTALL_VERSION points to a version
> >> > that has a
Steven J. Long wrote:
>>
>> > It will probably also cause confusion for comaintainers and
>> > collaborators, especially when INSTALL_VERSION points to a version
>> > that has already been removed.
>
> So use another name that can't be confused.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: I did not unde
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 05:49:07AM +, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> hasufell wrote:
> > Ulrich Mueller:
> >>
> >> I wonder if it wouldn't be saner to leave our revision syntax
> >> untouched.
>
> As already mentioned, -r1.1 is only one of several possible ways
> how to achieve the same aim; I am not
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:49:07 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> hasufell wrote:
> > Ulrich Mueller:
> >>
> >> I wonder if it wouldn't be saner to leave our revision syntax
> >> untouched.
>
> As already mentioned, -r1.1 is only one of several possible ways
> how to achieve the same aim; I am not
hasufell wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller:
>>
>> I wonder if it wouldn't be saner to leave our revision syntax
>> untouched.
As already mentioned, -r1.1 is only one of several possible ways
how to achieve the same aim; I am not speaking in favour for a
particular method.
The -r1.1 method has the advantage
