Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Ben Kohler
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > > Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important > > question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable". > > Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of ope

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread hasufell
On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important > question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable". > Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening > a public debate on this? I guess no, because > bike

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Raymond Jennings
You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at how gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few role models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a developer myself. I never expected to walk into this sort of tit for tat mud slinging

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Markos Chandras
On 2 April 2013 15:21, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete > BS ? I didn't. > > Alexis. > Apologies. My reply was below yours because it was the last one in the thread. It was not referred to you but to the endless "oh lets keep it, oh le

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100 Markos Chandras wrote: > Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important > question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable". Nobody besides that part of the thread is arguing about anything like that. If you are upset about the endless deb

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100 Markos Chandras wrote: > bikeshedding You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Markos Chandras
On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100 > Markos Chandras wrote: > >> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier >> > wrote: >> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older >> >> upg

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100 Markos Chandras wrote: > On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier > > wrote: > >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older > >> upgrade paths? > >> > > > > This whole discussion seems a b

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Peter Stuge
Samuli Suominen wrote: > imho, .. > we should stick to the "latest stable is the stable" mantra > (i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably > should not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?) If it's the agreen-upon way then why not document it? //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 02/04/13 15:25, hasufell wrote: bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, ju

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Markos Chandras
On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older >> upgrade paths? >> > > This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that > we have a version of bash we might

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older > upgrade paths? > This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some miracle the bash main

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:32:26 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200 > > hasufell wrote: > > > >> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most > >> package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be sta

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread hasufell
On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200 > hasufell wrote: > >> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package >> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even >> in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200 hasufell wrote: > bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package > managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even > in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit > out of gentoo, no matter what P

[gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread hasufell
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?