From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N5Rpg-0007GE-UM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:26:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E37A6E0999; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f206.google.com (mail-ew0-f206.google.com [209.85.219.206]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B31BE0999 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy2 with SMTP id 2so4388018ewy.34 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:26:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=d24SpwyusfMUwPymhVeqf3sZA+W53TF9WfWUsj/sIfs=; b=N4hm1yqFncl3HnQvV5TWHoprzH1HNMN/lErDfA5P87K6liW5CiQNC/uZIpuFJGpx2S n9Xp9+afj9NUFac3HWeCZusuO3dAOq92+09BEW18QClmvtWr06IYv4mqZSl6c9RKgnAR CKRlTDKn6V+F9hQvQXEgll96/rFsUzghlXJak= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=wZhEV+xZE22wYjndQPHNJ60sHQO1nseoNDoWkz2fMJr8PC5MH3vkAZIR4PjV7WsYTc xHwERAjPHDxv+CVmmNY/16XG/hV6PFd+K5Cpj6r6O0LXKoLl6mmGtBSXE03Cexski6uI zWvsoaFDWyDnkNC/qlK6c49lKCaCN/iZuTrM4= Received: by 10.213.107.17 with SMTP id z17mr419679ebo.10.1257287190786; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm1501388eyg.38.2009.11.03.14.26.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:26:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:26:24 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse? Message-ID: <20091103222624.19d4b591@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <200911032304.58321.patrick@gentoo.org> References: <200911031648.04090.patrick@gentoo.org> <20091103222624.112091f5@gentoo.org> <200911032304.58321.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.16.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/h5x7g=x_+4A0b/sdaj3lab2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 7d5f8147-f214-4284-aca2-6e7603d3315c X-Archives-Hash: 845114d2f318e57debf21b58e4e42eef --Sig_/h5x7g=x_+4A0b/sdaj3lab2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:04:58 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: > > If you want to fix PMS, then send a patch=20 > I tried, and as I've been saying for a long time they get rejected. Yes, let's look at the patches that you sent that were rejected: The first was one where you asked the PMS team to make a change that goes directly against a Council decision, and that the PMS team does not have the authority to accept on its own. You were told to bring the issue to gentoo-dev@ for further attention. You never did. The second patch you sent: * incorrectly removed as "no content" two sentences that had specific and necessary meaning. * didn't apply against any version of PMS except your much-modified local version, and that didn't make sense when applied to version of PMS that anyone else had. Again, no updated patch was sent. The third patch you sent had a number of small issues and could have been improved. You did not send an updated patch with those issues fixed. > Funnily not by any dev but by some random user, but who cares :) Everyone on the PMS mailing list is more than welcome to do patch reviews. The more eyes we have looking at things the better. Policy is not to apply patches until everyone is happy with them; objections are considered on their merits, not on their author. Every other person who has had people comment upon a patch they submitted has either addressed the issues and submitted an updated patch, or explained why they feel the patch is correct as-is. Every other person who has submitted a patch has worked with all the reviewers to reach a conclusion that is acceptable to all involved. Every other person has an ultimate patch acceptance rate of at least 98%. You are the *only* person to have had patches rejected where the submitter did not agree with the rejection. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/h5x7g=x_+4A0b/sdaj3lab2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkrwrhMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG6tQCgydsDYsw1L8cmUeKVJptspHf0 LJAAn2eov4AFWyD3eGlzcg0w7UFxz4Ud =fKS9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/h5x7g=x_+4A0b/sdaj3lab2--