On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 20:58:30 -0400
Rich Freeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Lauer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Now let's just continue to ignore the existing multilib-portage
> > work so we can claim it's irrelevant, while shifting the conditions
> > for accepting it whenever it is convenient, while silently adding
> > the competing method in-tree so it's all decided now anyway ...
> 
> Conditions for accepting it?  What are those, and how have they
> changed?

The conditions have always been "someone has to be able to explain
exactly what the changes are"...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to