-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:21:20 +0200 Alexander Berntsen <berna...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 30/05/14 19:18, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > Well, this thread's problem is not severe at all; thus, no need to > > mask. > I disagree. I'm with ssuominen. Do with that information what you > will... One can disagree about that, even claim a need for masking; that still doesn't mean one can ignore the maintainers and mask their package. It's not *that* severe for there to be *such* mask; anyway, the commit watches have been set up by some of those that would be affected, which includes parties like releng and infra that both rely on this package. If this were really severe, a ton of parties (users, dev, releng, infra, ...) would've complained about this; but in my participation everywhere, this comes over like a single once in a lifetime sea wave. - -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTiMrIAAoJEPWZc8roOL/QI9QH/jCt1y4/elM0VUvvJhu8KFXB uQxvAHwArsEAf1PAjheRHKuEw+JlB8rSRRxz6T//M7I3MClpQ7q6teVuWy8HrChe xI6hUF2QROZWzXYpf46c6fvqE6z6sJtI9AM6vzUCJdjpGhmQyDYBQFk9oYR+OCkb 6ZJM/SMURWcKxmkl0SgoMmDFSQVxTX/Lx3mpgAlfu1axyarJEGxODCF+kGbppKoB xlulodqyvQJmoZyVIqmXf5Tv7acmSRkGfUmq3vaPHA/Y+7OH/Z1sp+8k0uzn7Sgw ipZdsm93SvBCvfntFWXjk+uNI0z7i6R0vFuRJMmn02bLSEb2koBx3EbNPfBm/jU= =aCvB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
