From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [212.23.3.141] (helo=heisenberg.zen.co.uk) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HKuuo-00088D-2X for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:18:10 +0100 Received: from [217.155.205.243] (helo=[192.168.1.1]) by heisenberg.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HKuun-00050r-7W for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:18:09 +0000 Message-ID: <45E01EFD.1020707@callnetuk.com> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:18:21 +0000 From: Michael Rozdoba User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <45D98799.1080309@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> <200702191259.25200.openembedded@hrw.one.pl> <45D9984C.6090705@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> <45DAAEF4.50701@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> <45DAFC38.40000@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> <1172197564.5203.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45DEA03E.8070903@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: <45DEA03E.8070903@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> X-Originating-Heisenberg-IP: [217.155.205.243] Subject: Re: RFC: splitting deploy/ipk into subarchs X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:18:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Koen Kooi wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Matthias Hentges schreef: >> Am Dienstag, den 20.02.2007, 14:48 +0100 schrieb Koen Kooi: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> it should be off by default and - by all means - optional. > > No it should not. Next time respond to the RFCs instead of starting some uninformed rant > afterward. Matthias's post did not read as a rant. A response earlier certainly would have been more helpful, however as he points out, if the preceding procedure was meant to be a RFC the period allowed for this was very short. How long should be allowed for feedback is an issue I'm not qualified to comment on, however given the time allowed it is certainly unreasonable at the very least to complain when constructive feedback is received after the event. -- Michael m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t