Against my better judgment... On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600 > Steev Klimaszewski <st...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600 > > > Steev Klimaszewski <st...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having > > > > something working we should just remove ebuilds of working > > > > packages. > > > > > > s/should/could/ s/ebuilds/stable keyword or last stable version/ > > > > > > It is at the maintainer's discretion; and such decision is to make > > > it possible for a maintainer to move on when he or she can no longer > > > guarantee a working ebuild, to stop being progress-blocked by it. > > > > > > > You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. > > Why is this pure and utter bullshit?
Because I'm attempting to have a discussion with a brick wall. > > > Keeping it around for "slower" arches does NOT block progress. > > Why is keeping it around for "slower" arches not blocking progress? > Let's see... having the software at least available, versus not having access to it at all... which one is progress... THINK TOM THINK. > > I have intimate knowledge with what ACTUALLY happens when people pull > > this bullshit - and that is a system that I can no longer actually > > work on. > > That is also what happens when a maintainer keeps around old versions, > as well as old bugs and support for those old versions; as by doing so, > the attention towards newer versions is lost which causes much huger > breakage than the one you have just brought up. Manpower is limited. > And we attempted to come up with a solution for this, however due to the wording of a page on the interwebs that solution is 100% unacceptable *to you*, a person who is unaffected by it. > > And instead of working towards a fix that actually works > > for people who are ACTUALLY affected by the shitty policy, you hide > > behind definitions and pedantry. > > Why do you think this about the current and/or suggested solution(s)? > > > I'm now going to take a break from Gentoo development because this > > thread has seriously caused my blood to boil based on comments from > > the peanut gallery (you) where things don't actually affect your day > > to day work, but your actions do affect mine. > > Why? How and why are your actions affected by the QA team's actions? > Not the QA team's actions. YOURS. YOUR actions and responses in this thread. And the fact that the QA team allows you to continue to be on it, despite your obvious lack of interest in ACTUALLY having quality assurance. My actions are affected by it because I have to continue to attempt to discuss the issue with others who actually give a shit, and you just swoop in and say no, that absolutely is unacceptable as a solution (even though it doesn't affect me!) because this page here says that it can't - we can change that definition if you'd like. Instead of the line saying: The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs. Would changing it to read The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions which are not for use on unlisted archs. Would that make it acceptable?
