Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Anders Hellgren wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included council members. I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to the council. Best regards, Stu FWIW, there was almost an hour's worth of discussion before the start of the log KingTaco posted. As a bystander, my guess is that the discussion took place in the devrel channel because a complaint about the use of the bugzilla whiteboard by the sunrise folks was brought up in that channel. The compromise was made to defuse further escalation to a formal complaint to devrel. /Anders -- Anders Hellgren (kallamej) Gentoo Forums Administrator OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs somewhere else from bugzilla. You know very well I had no problem w/ assigning them, I just requested them to be clearly marked as such (which the users have been doing, thank you for that). Since some developers consider such use of bugzilla as misuse of Gentoo infrastructure and have gone so far that they involved devrel in this discussion, I'm not going to assign those bugs any more. Your 'thank you' goes especially to brix, your complaints go to devrel as a body that proclaimed themselves empowered to decide on acceptable bugzilla usage. There's no technical difference between using bugzilla for unofficial java migration overlay hosted on gentooexperimental.org and using it for unofficial overlay hosted on gentoo-sunrise.org (and even usage of keywords and status whiteboard for unofficial overlays counts as a misuse of bugzilla here). Devrel's current policy clearly is that bugzilla may only be used for official overlays hosted on overlays.gentoo.org, Sorry for the inconvenience, not my fault. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Jakub Moc wrote: Anders Hellgren wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included council members. I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to the council. Best regards, Stu FWIW, there was almost an hour's worth of discussion before the start of the log KingTaco posted. As a bystander, my guess is that the discussion took place in the devrel channel because a complaint about the use of the bugzilla whiteboard by the sunrise folks was brought up in that channel. The compromise was made to defuse further escalation to a formal complaint to devrel. /Anders -- Anders Hellgren (kallamej) Gentoo Forums Administrator OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs somewhere else from bugzilla. You know very well I had no problem w/ assigning them, I just requested them to be clearly marked as such (which the users have been doing, thank you for that). Since some developers consider such use of bugzilla as misuse of Gentoo infrastructure and have gone so far that they involved devrel in this discussion, I'm not going to assign those bugs any more. Your 'thank you' goes especially to brix, your complaints go to devrel as a body that proclaimed themselves empowered to decide on acceptable bugzilla usage. There's no technical difference between using bugzilla for unofficial java migration overlay hosted on gentooexperimental.org and using it for unofficial overlay hosted on gentoo-sunrise.org (and even usage of keywords and status whiteboard for unofficial overlays counts as a misuse of bugzilla here). Devrel's current policy clearly is that bugzilla may only be used for official overlays hosted on overlays.gentoo.org, Sorry for the inconvenience, not my fault. Umm maybe it's just to early in the morning, but I don't see anything in the logs regarding using bugzilla for overlays not on overlays.gentoo.org. I only see references to sunrise specifically, not a blanket statement for all non-overlays.gentoo.org overlays Or was this part of a discussion / decision that wasn't on this mailing list...? Josh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Seemant Kulleen wrote: First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? Not sure either, maybe brix will be able to answer your question better. What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. Uhm, what I am saying here is that we can either have a *general* policy on acceptable bugzilla usage, or no policy at all. Inventing ad-hoc policies for a single project just because a couple of folks dislike that project does not do any good and does not make any sense either. The whole concept of status whiteboard and keywords usage constituting a misuse of Gentoo infrastructure is pretty new to me. That stuff is there to make searching for bugs and their grouping easier, and as such has been used. Then someone comes to #-devrel with the above complaint, and devrel (or some its member) within an hour decides that all such keywords and status whiteboard records need to be nuked from bugzilla? What are the grounds for such decision, and why it's OK for one unofficial project to use bugzilla for their bugs, and why it's so horribly wrong for another unofficial project to even pollute those fields, without actually creating new bugs? That's what this thread is about, and that's why I have brought this up. Not to harm java migration and java folks. As I have stated already, I have no problem with their bugs, I've even talked to nichoj some weeks ago to arrange it in the best possible way. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Seemant There would not be any issue if devrel didn't act the way they did, the matter has not been urgent at all. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Seemant Kulleen wrote: This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. +1 (with gusto!) -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:43:23AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Seemant Kulleen wrote: First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds (not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it is :) I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP overlay, the webapps overlay...etc... This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Seemant Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess. For once I'm not going to step on devrels balls for this one. Someone had to do something. For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting nailed for it because its not their place. Am I thrilled with the outcome? No not really. Apparently neither is Jakub. Thats all fine. Can always overturn it later. Or we can discuss it endlessly here with no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper use of bugzilla is. Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all the time and compromise with other projects*. * Including projects currently suspended. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
This was originally supposed to go into another thread, but hey - this is a perfect illustration of what I am going to talk about (to unconfuse Seemant right away - this is not related to your posting but rather to the situation that lead to it). I really was considering sending this as a theoretical musings email (pointed at spyderous primarily? he seems to enjoy my rare postings like these :)), but well, looks like I'll have to be somewhat serious for a change. Executive summary: There is a (by now) well established knowledge on group dynamics depending on its size, involving parameters such as Dubnar's number for example. Two references I spotted just recently (well, Ok, they are from 2004 actually :)) can be found below: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/03/what_is_the_opt.html (and here is a more scientific writing, a base article for which the above two are kind of illustratory/anecdotal evidence types: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs0565-00/bbs.dunbar.html ) The first two are kind of extreme in their coverage - one talks about MMORG guilds and another about terrorist cells, but hey, who said we are that different ;)? Both talk about social structure/critical sizes of the groups at small and medium scale. Social networks brought together towards implementing some common goal, so I say observations similar to those should apply to us too. It looks like we are now at that tipping point. herdstat tells me we are some 233 developers atm, which sounds damn close to that magical number of 150 active group participants (in our case that would correspond to reasonably active regular devs, i.e. the ones who do general maintaince, participate in discussions (by at least trying to read them) and at least sometimes emerge from that one small project they are in..). The suggestion maybe this whole screaming is a something inherent to the group size has been voiced recently a few times. So yes, to me this indeed seems very likely to be the case. Ironically, the later push to cleanse inactive devs, coupled with successfull recruitment may have been the thing that pushed us over (remember, dead souls don't count).. So, what is the pont I am trying to make? Well, basically I just want to say that the problem is real and won't go away by periodically screaming be nice to each other, since it seems to be inherent to a group size. We cannot just reduce our numbers - it does not work this way. If anything, we need *more* people, not less :). However at this point we cannot grow either. The main idea of the original (3rd cited) paper is that this is a real limit, imposed by the amount of housekeeping interactions that are needed to sustain a group of that size, it is the way we are as species. As you push more people in, more start leaving and for a group to grow past that limit it has to restructure, assume a more diffuse interaction/more role division perhaps? (Similarly, just putting some *one* at the top won't work either without restructuring the group. In fact it seems to work worse for the groups that are over the small group limit). So, yes, we have to adress it, and lets try to do it right. However lets not take this lightly, I sense a lot of fights involved :), but I am optimistic of eventual outcome.. (But don't ask me for a grand plan - I don't have one, I hope evolution forces will help us sort things out :)). George PS. A short short summary of critical group sizes. I really need to refresh my memory on that stuff though.. Small groups - 5 to 9, optimal - 7,8 People concentrate on one common problem and interact very closely. Medium groups - 25 to 150, optimal 80-90 (but when there is a clear bias to add people (shiny idea/something valuable/commonly recognized as necessary) it is stable at a maximum of ~150). Often involves tight small subgroups, normally specialized, general interaction is loose but still on a personal level (even if not very intensive) Large groups - I only remember the upper limit of ~2000 for those and I am rusty on what is the failing factor. Seems like a Debian situation to me (with most everybody else, us included, stuck at a medium group level). Commertial entities often overcome these issues of scale by imposing a chain-of-command structure, effectively splitting into smaller subgroups and having a hierarchial structure made of those. However this arrangement is explicitly deemed unsuitable by many developers (according to voiced opinions in the past). I suppose we can think about some loose arrangement of small and medium groups, may be even some minor modifications to our project structure can help (make Top level projects = medium group, subproject = small group). This one is apparent of course, but, as usual, the devil is in the details (people doing work in different areas and, most importantly,
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:09:24 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because | he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over | another? One unofficial project that has screwed up so badly that the council has had to step in and say no to it, as opposed to an unofficial project that has not attracted complaints and that is being worked into the tree? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Joshua Nichols wrote: Umm maybe it's just to early in the morning, but I don't see anything in the logs regarding using bugzilla for overlays not on overlays.gentoo.org. I only see references to sunrise specifically, not a blanket statement for all non-overlays.gentoo.org overlays Or was this part of a discussion / decision that wasn't on this mailing list...? Mike Doty wrote: Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Alec Warner wrote: I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds (not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it is :) I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP overlay, the webapps overlay...etc... No, because those are now hosted by Gentoo. Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess. For once I'm not going to step on devrels balls for this one. Someone had to do something. For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting nailed for it because its not their place. Am I thrilled with the outcome? No not really. Apparently neither is Jakub. Thats all fine. Can always overturn it later. Or we can discuss it endlessly here with no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper use of bugzilla is. Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all the time and compromise with other projects*. Yes, but as Seemant said, all those affected in the decision should be involved (or at least represented) in the compromise. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:09:24 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because | he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over | another? One unofficial project that has screwed up so badly that the council has had to step in and say no to it, It's entirely possible that I missed some important message, but as far as I know, council hasn't said either yes or no to it, and the overlay as hosted on o.g.o is suspended only until a council decision is made. as opposed to an unofficial project that has not attracted complaints and that is being worked into the tree? Quoting the original message: Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them. Please explain to me how any non-gentoo hosted overlay can possibly be an exception to this. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? The jave unofficial overlay is well on its way to becoming an official and officially hosted overlay. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message? Not at all. I've been back on the gentoo-dev list for three weeks, and the actual dev part of it has been pretty much missing. This list would be more ideal as gentoo-rant, gentoo-torture-every-reader-with-endless-threads, gentoo-lets-not-get-along, gentoo-babies, gentoo-childishness, we can come with a few more. My personal view is apparently starting to be more public here, so I'll be plain: I think developers needs to all seriously reconsider what they are doing with Gentoo and why. I'm not advocating anything other than a bit of introspection on why people do this to begin with. In the past few weeks, I've seen devs get at each others' throats; and worse still at users' throats. And really, it's a little too much already. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Also, just so I'm clear on my stance on this: I don't care one whit about whether those keywords are used in bugzilla or not. Keywords are a way to help bugzilla users use bugzilla. As for perceptions about it -- as long sunrise is clear on their pages that they are absolutely not official as of yet, I don't think we run into any issues, officially. There may be users who do get that perception. On the other hand, you will have people who walk by a sign that says sale today and ask when exactly the sale is. We can't, and should not, hold everyone's hand. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? The jave unofficial overlay is well on its way to becoming an official and officially hosted overlay. And once it is, it can be given special treatment. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message? Not at all. I've been back on the gentoo-dev list for three weeks, and the actual dev part of it has been pretty much missing. This list would be more ideal as gentoo-rant, gentoo-torture-every-reader-with-endless-threads, gentoo-lets-not-get-along, gentoo-babies, gentoo-childishness, we can come with a few more. Maybe discussions have been focused on policy more than development itself, but for the most part (yes, there have been exceptions), they have still been focused on Gentoo. You seem to be making it personal, which is over the line for me. My personal view is apparently starting to be more public here, so I'll be plain: I think developers needs to all seriously reconsider what they are doing with Gentoo and why. I'm not advocating anything other than a bit of introspection on why people do this to begin with. That is a good idea regardless. In the past few weeks, I've seen devs get at each others' throats; and worse still at users' throats. And really, it's a little too much already. Your frustration is understandable, but I think you took it out on the wrong message, and very possibly the wrong person. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Alec Warner wrote: I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds (not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it is :) I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP overlay, the webapps overlay...etc... No, because those are now hosted by Gentoo. Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess. For once I'm not going to step on devrels balls for this one. Someone had to do something. For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting nailed for it because its not their place. Am I thrilled with the outcome? No not really. Apparently neither is Jakub. Thats all fine. Can always overturn it later. Or we can discuss it endlessly here with no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper use of bugzilla is. Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all the time and compromise with other projects*. Yes, but as Seemant said, all those affected in the decision should be involved (or at least represented) in the compromise. Thanks, Donnie You're right, not everyone was represented. It was a response to the problem at hand. If the other overlay people feel that they need to be represented, I will hold a 2nd meeting to address their specific issues. Assuming that a significant amount of overlay managers want, I will hold this meeting at Sunday 1800 UTC in #gentoo-devrel on freenode. Please post your specific problems on this (sub) thread by Saturday 1800 UTC so I at least have 24 hours to understand and ask questions before the meeting. -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Recruitment Lead Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Executive summary: There is a (by now) well established knowledge on group dynamics depending on its size, involving parameters such as Dubnar's number for example. Two references I spotted just recently (well, Ok, they are from 2004 actually :)) can be found below: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/03/what_is_the_opt.html (and here is a more scientific writing, a base article for which the above two are kind of illustratory/anecdotal evidence types: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs0565-00/bbs.dunbar.html All three were very informative, were we to actaully task a commitee (of seven people!) to take a look at how we interact, it would be an interesting job I think; perhaps leading to some ideas on how to reorganize ourselves. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:33:21PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 18:07 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? The jave unofficial overlay is well on its way to becoming an official and officially hosted overlay. And once it is, it can be given special treatment. We're talking around each other, let's stop. I'm not advocating that the overlay keywords for sunrise cease -- as I stated in another part of this thread: I do not care one way or the other. I don't think it is appropriate, however, to make other projects hostage because you don't like what's going on with your pet project. Agreed, but I don't think there's any reading of the original message that allows continuing use of Gentoo's bugzilla for Java's overlay until it is hosted by Gentoo, so I don't consider this Jakub's decision. Maybe discussions have been focused on policy more than development itself, but for the most part (yes, there have been exceptions), they have still been focused on Gentoo. You seem to be making it personal, which is over the line for me. I'm pretty sure I have not made it personal. I'm not addressing any one in particular on these, nor do I have anything against any parties (or for any parties for that matter). I'm sorry if you took my words that way, that was certainly not the intent from this side. It was mostly the gentoo-babies reference to this list that I considered name-calling and a bit too much, even if it wasn't directed at any single person in particular. If I misunderstood you, sorry. Your frustration is understandable, but I think you took it out on the wrong message, and very possibly the wrong person. I know what I did, and they were both the correct target. We can take this off-list and include Jakub himself in it, if you're dying to know. I think Jakub himself knows full well *exactly* where I came from and why. If there's something between you and Jakub that I'm not aware of, I'll stay out of that. It doesn't affect my opinion on this specific topic, though. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
