On Nov 29, 2007 7:06 PM, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Something must have motivated you to present this now. What was it, or
> to put it a different way, how would have things been different in your
> view had this policy been in effect? Point to other examples as well if
> you believe t
On 05:04 Thu 29 Nov , Duncan wrote:
> Leave it to ciarnm to be so direct, amusing tho it is, but that pretty
> much nails it. I've seen it said by some that Gentoo's no longer "fun".
> I disagree but honestly, ask yourself if there's a better way to ruin the
> fun remaining than by institu
On 21:33 Wed 28 Nov , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800
> > What remains unclear about this principle?
>
> It's entirely nebulous and has nothing that can be discussed or agreed
> upon, beyond giving people a feel good "ooh, yes, we should do this"
> with no practical
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many of the replies keep asking for details -- details that don't
> exist. Apply the concept abstractly: things that need to be
> documented must have documentation available in the appropriate form
> at the time they'r
On 12:38 Wed 28 Nov , Duncan wrote:
> Donnie, I'm sure you have the scope of what you intend to apply this to
> firmly in your mind, but it's not at all clear from your post what it
> is. Ebuilds? Doesn't make sense with changelog already there and
> generally used (when folks don't forget
