this is so twisted, i dont know what to say
i dont want this fixed so i can be sloppy, i want "a solution", so others won't be able to break the tree for everyone so easily, to protect myself from their QA, and make things easier reversible of they stil do not do proper QA
at least now i know where your negativity is coming from, id be angry at anyone wanting tools to do their QA
we actually have that in common
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:40:21 -0600 Daniel Goller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip rhetoric> | so can this be summed up that we as gentoo developers do not care | enough to do something that would allow us to prevent major breakage | for users? that we do not care enough to demonstrate enough | professionalism "in the wild" to get people ever interested into | something corporations (whatever the final name of the product would | be) would be interested in testing? <snip rhetoric> | someone please tell me this is not what this thread shows, cause when | i go through it all, this is what i read.
No, this thread shows that we think about things properly before jumping in and implementing a badly thought out idea that won't solve the problem under discussion but will cause a whole load of new problems.
Don't start whining about 'professionalism' and 'caring about breaking things' if you can't come up with a decent technological justification for your proposal. I care a *lot* about not having a broken tree, which is why I want to see this done properly rather than having some insane hack thrown in by someone who just wants to avoid taking responsibility for his own actions by blaming it on the tools instead.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
