This is the mail archive of the libc-ports@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hello! On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 04:18:51PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 02 May 2009 08:58:58 Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:55:26AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Thursday 30 April 2009 11:00:42 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > I think it's just going to make more work for the maintainers of each > > > > individual port. Mostly, they just keep working. It'll also be a > > > > pain for multi-platform distributors like Debian, who will have to do > > > > the merge anyway. > > > > > > it's also a pain for people who like to have 1 source tree and switch > > > between targets on the fly with only different configure targets. or for > > > people who want to quickly search all ports for how they handle some > > > feature. > > > > > > i really dont see any upside to this. the proposed rebasing aspect is a > > > complete wash: public git repos should never have their pushed history > > > rebased, and local rebasing of the entire ports tree vs a single arch is > > > exactly the same considering the repo is so small. > > > > Mike, cool down. > > i dont know what you're talking about > > > I was merely making a proposal. > > and i was pointing out reasons why it was a bad idea. if you think people > disagreeing with you means they're angry or something, then you'll have to > rethink how proposals work on mailing lists. If there are valid technical reasons to prefer another approach over mine then that is very fine with me, as I said already. But saying that my proposal ``is a complete wash'' and basing this statement by putting words into my mouth that I didn't even say (``have their pushed history rebased'') is not what I call a constructive discussion. This will be my last public reply on this matter, please follow up privately if you must. Regards, Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |