On 20:59 Wed 31 Mar , Serheo wrote:
> Google summer of code test message. Sorry for interuption.
You might want to consider the impression you make on people when you
send an email like this. When you're required to send an email, why not
make it something useful and get people excited about
On Thursday 01 April 2010 19:39:43 Dror Levin wrote:
> Here's another suggestion: how about we don't impose any ridiculous
> constraints on development and keep this discussion on the technological
> side of the original proposal?
It's not ridiculous to expect to have a new EAPI in a reasonable am
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 April 2010 19:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, [...] but I would
>> really like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would
>> not explode all over the mailing list. Please
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:45:44 +0100
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 03/24/10 11:28, Michał Górny wrote:
> > 3. ESCM_LIVE_FAIL_IF_REPO_NOT_UPDATED (similar to the one in
> > git.eclass)
> > - a common switch to force unpack() phase to fail if no updates
> > were found during the pull/update.
>
On 03/24/10 11:28, Michał Górny wrote:
> As suggested by ssuominen on bug #311101, I am posting the issue
> to the mailing list.
>
> Currently, various SCM eclasses differ very much in the subset
> of features and control variables implemented. The idea is to establish
> a single subset of such va
On 1 April 2010 19:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, [...] but I would
> really like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would
> not explode all over the mailing list. Please don't let the discussions
> get personal.
But you _should
