From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EEcP3-0006VG-PE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:42:34 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8C0aRMt001217; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:36:27 GMT Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8C0WdC5016276 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:32:40 GMT Received: from [192.168.2.101] (pcp09895245pcs.ewndsr01.nj.comcast.net[68.36.161.94]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2005091200365501500j2grme>; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:36:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date From: Peter Hyman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4324CB6D.9060202@gentoo.org> References: <1126447110.10560.13.camel@localhost> <20050911155045.GA13507@kfk4ever.com> <1126456931.10563.22.camel@localhost> <43249B63.4030002@gentoo.org> <1126484067.10558.83.camel@localhost> <4324CB6D.9060202@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: PAH Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:36:55 -0400 Message-Id: <1126485415.10563.101.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9f514944-f96f-48da-8d3e-3302f4078df2 X-Archives-Hash: 9bd5b0644e7c17f69f7199b35a072c61 On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 20:27 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > > Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have > > already been rejected Ciaran. It's important to realize that the > > submissions were intended to AID the developers, not to necessarily be > > PERFECT in every way. > > Of course they have been criticized by Ciaran. In case you didn't know, > he does this for *every* maintainer-wanted ebuild. They are only > rejected as long as they have problems. If you fix them, they will be > accepted if some dev takes responsibility for them, or is recruited to > maintain them. It's really that simple Sounds like a case where you > can't stand to have anyone review your work. > > > I submitted the ebuilds in good faith in the hope they would help myself > > and others get the portage tree wrt ROX up to date and correct > > breakages. In that my "spacing" was not liked, or my "descriptions" were > > too long is irrelevant. > > No, it isn't irrelevant. We strive to make the portage tree to be of > high quality. Why settle for less? > > -Steve Oh, flame on! When I submitted many of the ebuilds, I had no idea the rox maintainers were AWOL. I just assumed that they would take heed of the version bumps, small changes made to existing ebuilds, and update portage. It was not my intent to replace the maintainers or to re-invent their efforts. I thought that having a new up-to-date ebuild would save time for the maintainers. I did not know that there were none anymore. As I wrote privately to Ciaran, if I WAS auditioning to become a dev, then sure, I need the comments. However, I was using: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ebuild-submit.xml as my guide -- the goal being to alert the devs that new stuff was out and that certain breakages needed fixing. If the goal was to keep portage quality high, take heed of user comments when it comes to updating packages. We all share that goal. -- Peter -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list