On Tue January 06 2004 4:33 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote: <snip> > > dev says "ok, that sounds fun." I mean, I got passed back and forth > > from hardened to general and back a few times and it was all because > > the devs reviewing my bug(s) didn't understand the packages. > > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready > for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.
If someone has gone their entire life using a rock to hammer nails and has never heard of a hammer before and thus doesn't have the demand for it does that mean that if they are told about the hammer they won't use it or have a demand for always having it? Sometimes you create demand where one doesn't currently exist by simply telling people about the hammer. > > Basically, I just find that the entire ebuild submission process could > > definitely be streamlined as to take less dev time and be more > > rewarding for the users actually doing the submissions. Including > > having user response saying, "hey, so and so just bumped package-x.y.y > > to package-x.y.z and it builds fine with a renamed and digested > > ebuild." > > I would agree with that. However I don't know how to do it in a good way > that preserves quality. There is but it will take effort and time to setup. Sometimes if not always time is required to save time in the long run. Kind of like it takes money to make money. It takes time to save it. Fine grain controls on cvs are required now. If you want until they are fully needed then there will be a ton of pressure to get it done yesterday. Lets not REact let's be proactive. If there is a way to make cvs ownership based that would be the easiest administration wise. As in the ebuild(s) I submit I have access to and nothing else. Robert -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
