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 4.62) (envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-22525-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1Hbfm9-0006qm-B4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:34:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3BGXUA2026380; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:33:30 GMT Received: from smtp03.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (smtp-out3.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net [70.43.63.20]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3BGV69t023648 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:31:07 GMT Received: from [10.3.23.140] (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l3BGV12T023025 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:31:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <fcaeb9bf0704110602o15aa35cemfb86f6e098999567@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070410193249.GD7991@ubik> <1176236958.8836.26.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <461BF890.9030600@subsignal.org> <1176239939.8836.39.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <fcaeb9bf0704110602o15aa35cemfb86f6e098999567@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-GKf7PCh2K5Jlr9/FBb2P" Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:31:01 -0400 Message-Id: <1176309061.8755.86.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 X-Archives-Salt: d5fa1a33-c0cb-43aa-88bb-00b7910aed5b X-Archives-Hash: 5e6bb581d335ec854fdafc6a851ae6fe --=-GKf7PCh2K5Jlr9/FBb2P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 20:02 +0700, Nguy=E1=BB=85n Th=C3=A1i Ng=E1=BB=8Dc Du= y wrote: > > I tend to agree that this is a problem, but only insofar as we've becom= e > > too territorial. Many times I see bugs filed with seemingly minor > > changes being asked for. A good example is bug #173884 which is a > > completely valid request. The change is simple, removing > > "insinto /etc/env.d ; doins $somefile" and replacing it with "doenvd > > $somefile" instead. Now, this is something that *anyone* with commit > > access should feel comfortable doing to *anyone's* packages without fea= r > > of being attacked for touching someone else's packages. >=20 > I wish we could have a list stating which package you have to contact > its maintainer first (and the reason why if possible), or add > <restricted> tag in metadata.xml to warn people. The rest of the tree > will be free land (unless you break the tree of course) That's really the point here. You should *never* have to contact the maintainer first for minor QA issues like changing something as simple as "insinto /etc/env.d ; doins $somefile" into "doenvd $somefile" or fixing a typo. The maintainer only needs to be contacted on changes that modify the end result. If you're completely rearranging the ebuild or trying to add a patch, you should definitely contact the maintainer. If you're just cleaning up minor QA issues, it isn't necessary. This has always been the case, but perhaps it would be better to state it more plainly so people understand that they are allowed to touch *anything* in the tree. The main thing to take into consideration is the scope of who is affected. Take a package rename as an example. If your package foo is being renamed bar, then I would fully expect you to change all instances of foo in dependencies in the tree to bar, as it really only "affects" you since it was your package that changed. If you're adding a new default local USE that only affects your package, there's no need to ask anyone. If you're adding a new default USE that's used in a bunch of packages, it should be asked here. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation --=-GKf7PCh2K5Jlr9/FBb2P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGHQ1FkT4lNIS36YERAqdiAKCzxzinjO+DjEK8BZRO1M2S/cf2rwCfZ/rz Bkm3X8Bf3r72AL2j0PT6E1I= =Ub08 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-GKf7PCh2K5Jlr9/FBb2P-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list