"Version specific code is already doable with versionator. The eclasses that need this do it already"
if finding a problem involves finding a particular version in cvs, then not all that need it use it, so use the more technical sound version of taking care of versioned eclasses, dont get personal if you know of a technologically enforcable "smart way" of doing it, say it, dont' ridicule, be constructive
if all that need it used it, then foo-x.y-rz would still work and only foo-x.y-rp was broken, no cvs fishing involved
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:04:36 -0600 Daniel Goller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | how dare someone suggest we change things to avoid accidents
This isn't about making changes to avoid accidents. It's about making really really stupid changes to avoid accidents.
Version specific code is already doable with versionator. The eclasses that need this do it already. No need for any insane portage changes that'll just turn into a maintenance nightmare. The situation is the same as it was the last time this topic came up.
If anyone's breaking stable, the solution is to talk to them and make sure they know what they did and be more careful next time. If they do it repeatedly, ask devrel to step in. For every absurd technological hack you add in, someone comes up with an even weirder way of breaking the tree that said hack doesn't cover.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
