Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > One of major problems with this tinderbox is that it cannot be > > used to test packages against newer versions of packages present > > in overlays [1] > > Which is not a problem since we're _not_ talking about packages > in overlays but of a bump in the main tree which is not fixed.
Um, so how come an overlay isn't the obvious method for testing, before putting things in the main tree? What other method is *more* convenient for testing? Hell, I am *not* a developer exactly *because* overlays are so convenient. > Really, I would like to ask you to step off of the discussion, you've > proven yourself incapable to work within the constraint of the tree > already a long time ago. Diego, I would like to ask you to step off Arfrever. Try for a second to appreciate the time he has contributed and from the sound of it continues to contribute, even if he does not use the methods that you would have made him use if you were paying his salary. You're sounding like a complete ass in this thread, and I don't see the point of that at all. I expect that you're better than that. Especially snapping back at him with some unrelated bull personal remark when he points out what seems to me to be a very legitimate shortcoming of your darling baby is not especially excellent. Maybe it would have been possible for you to reply something like "yes, that would be a cool feature actually, if you send me a perfect patch I'll be happy to deploy it" or "well, I don't see the point in doing that, but if it would help you then send me a perfect patch and I'll be happy to deploy it" instead. I guess you see how such an answer would have communicated something different from the answer that you chose. //Peter
