Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved > | concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases. > > Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual was that it would be > possible for the right people to update it to codify existing practice > without arguments from the peanut gallery who like to claim that > because they've been getting away with it it's allowed. See also > conflicting USE flags and static metadata requirement... This isn't a > change, it's a documentation of how things are.
You still didn't bring in any argument, why am I not surprised? Plus don't pull in unrelated stuff into this debate. Plus getting devmanual changed on the fly and using it as a point in discussion five minutes later is not an acceptable practice for anyone who wants to debate things seriously. > You've already wasted too much of other people's time on this. You're > not getting any more of mine. Please, take this, your peanut galleries and other junk off-list, noone's interested. Thanks. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
