El mié, 03-11-2021 a las 21:15 -0500, John Helmert III escribió: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 12:09:28AM +0000, Sam James wrote: > > On 4 Nov 2021, at 00:02, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On 3 Nov 2021, at 23:53, Aaron Bauman <b...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > Is that where the policy belongs? > > > > If so, shouldn't the council update it based on their decisions? > > > > "patches are welcome" doesn't fit every scenario. > > > Got to agree here. If there's a gap in the documentation, > > > let's file a bug -- irrespective of if someone is going to give > > > a patch. > > > Just commenting this on the ML means it'll get lost > > > and we'll forget about it... > > > > Filed https://bugs.gentoo.org/821553. Please > > feel free to clarify it. > > Thank you! Many of us apparently have differing interpretations of the > policy (and it's somewhat hidden), so a clear policy in an obvious > place will be a huge improvement!
I haven't tried yet as, fortunately, I have been able to deal with the conflicts most of the times but, I was wondering if one workaround would be to simply try to use emerge-webrsync --revert= option. That way, people could try to upgrade their old systems going from the oldest tree to, for example, the tree from August of this year. Later they could update to a newer snapshot and follow until the end
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
