> From: Marc Espie
> Date: 2019-04-06 13:24:35
> Message-ID: 20190406132435.GA7545 () lain ! home
> [Download RAW message or body]
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:11:57AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> > You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
> > rati
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:11:57AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
> rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I
> suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.
There's no rationale.
Just experime
On 4/5/19 7:44 AM, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
Is this due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other
reason (lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted
by the project)?
This wording is one of several things that led to accusations of
disrespect. If I said "Ar
On 2019/04/05 06:44, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this due
> to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason (lack of
> manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the project)?
You seem to disagree a
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:44:36AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this due
> to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason (lack of
> manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the project)? Ar
Apr 05, 2019 at 07:20:49AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Do you have documentation on this process? I would be happy to read it and
> ask questions you feel may be better. As an open source project I am
> surprised about the lack of transparency for various things.
You will find several link
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:44:36AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this due
> to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason (lack of
> manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the project)? Ar
>Do you have documentation on this process? I would be happy to read it
>and ask questions you feel may be better. As an open source project I am
>surprised about the lack of transparency for various things.
Such strong words!
>I have opinions yes, but I also try to understand those of others w
Do you have documentation on this process? I would be happy to read it
and ask questions you feel may be better. As an open source project I am
surprised about the lack of transparency for various things.
I have opinions yes, but I also try to understand those of others which
is what prompted
>You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
>rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I
>suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.
>
>And how do you define crappier releases? If something is stable enough
>that the development team decid
You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I
suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.
And how do you define crappier releases? If something is stable enough
that the development team decide to
>Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this
>due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason
>(lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the
>project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this
>unloc
Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this
due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason
(lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the
project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this
unlocked s
On 2018-03-25, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> The ports tree is now locked for the 6.3 release.
... and unlocked again.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
> > What's happening with m68k? No snapshot package update since 4.3.
> >
> > Are they halted until the linker/binutil issue is resolved? Is that
> > likely to be fixed in 4.4? (Is that issue just mac68k?)
>
> Probably going to miss 4.4.
Well, systems (including xenocara) will be built for 4.4, b
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Hugo Villeneuve
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 08:27:44PM -0700, Peter Valchev wrote:
>> With the python fixes just making it in, the tree is now locked for
>> the 4.4 release. Thanks to everyone who tested!
>
>
> What's happening with m68k? No
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 08:27:44PM -0700, Peter Valchev wrote:
> With the python fixes just making it in, the tree is now locked for
> the 4.4 release. Thanks to everyone who tested!
What's happening with m68k? No snapshot package update since 4.3.
Are they halted until the linker/binutil issue
17 matches
Mail list logo
