On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 09:41 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This
> is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to
> 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based
> on the _intentions_
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This
> is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to
> 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based
> on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law ha
James Potts wrote:
I hate to put it to you this way, but if you give people an inch,
they'll take a mile. Yes, political correctnes is unproductive. This
is why decisions like the one made here need to be thought out better
before being made. But once the decision is made, it should be
applied
On Saturday 24 June 2006 00:07, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial. Therefore, technically, if it is against the
> rules for projects and/or devs to use bugz
On 6/24/06, Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:07:52AM -0500, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.
_Technically_ probably
Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> was
>> suspended in the first place. You're taking every comment that's been
>> made against it as a personal attack and have been ignorant in *all* the
>> technical details.
> Well ... if the technical details are "it will cause the end of the
> world" it's hard to evalua
James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial. Therefore, technically, if it is against the
> rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial
> overlays,
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:07:52AM -0500, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.
_Technically_ probably maybe, but please read what already has been
said about
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Sorry to disappoint you :-)
There are times for action and times for meditation, mix them correctly...
Also remember that rarely we need to take quick action or the world will
fall, "think twice, do it once" is a good way to avoid problems.
sunrise has lots of potential BU
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 21:38 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > | Just to take this to a humorous extreme -
> > | would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?
> >
> > That's not a
There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
currently unofficial. Therefore, technically, if it is against the
rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial
overlays, then it is against the rules
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 10:28 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Now, the java team is an official Gentoo project...
And even more pertinent (and a point that got lost in all this, sadly):
The gentoo-java's migration effort is NOT an overlay in the sense that
breakmygentoo or sunrise are. It is mere
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Just to take this to a humorous extreme -
> | would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?
>
> That's not a humourous extreme at all. That would be a good start. Now,
> follow it u
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Just to take this to a humorous extreme -
| would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?
That's not a humourous extreme at all. That would be a good start. Now,
follow it up with a promise that something simil
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 16:40 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> > Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I
> > grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an
> > 'unofficial overlay'.
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's
> decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look*
> official. Using "InOverlay" as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo
> offi
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I
> grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an
> 'unofficial overlay'.
No, this is about a project that was supposed to be suspended until
it
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Frankly said, neither council nor devrel have any say in suspending
> projects hosted outside of gentoo, be it sunrise, gentopia,
> java-migration, java-experimental, BMG, or whatever else. You just can't
> dictate unpaid people what are they go
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as
> well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
> If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by
> logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as
>> well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
>> If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by
>> logic, the Java overlay should get the
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as
> well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
> If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by
> logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 22:18 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 06:50 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> > > OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs
> > > somewhere else from bugzilla.
>
> The gentoo-java developers have been working their tails off for over a
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 06:50 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> > OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs
> > somewhere else from bugzilla.
The gentoo-java developers have been working their tails off for over a
year to do a massive migration (far broader reaching than the av
23 matches
Mail list logo
