The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2010-03-14 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-perl/Email-MIME-Creator 2010-03-14 12:27:13 tove
dev-perl/Email-MIME-Modifier2010-03-14 12:27:19 tove
dev-perl/Email-Simple-Creator 2010-0
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:21:13 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> You misunderstood what I meant. The action I am talking about is
> reopening the bug. Any developer who notices that a bug should be
> reopened should reopen it so it gets noticed.
Sorry, my mistake.
--
fonts,
On 03/12/2010 08:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> Let's
On 14 March 2010 06:09, James Cloos wrote:
>> "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
>
> BdG> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree.
>
> Nonsense. That attitude only servers to harm the user base.
You're wrong. It serves to protect our users from potentially
broken and vulnerable pack
On 03/14/2010 10:56 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:07:41 +0200
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
>> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
>> see why maintainers would be any more likely
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:07:41 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
> see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team
> comprised of multiple
