From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CFBC1381F3 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 08111E0AC6; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from georges.telenet-ops.be (georges.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.68]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B91E080D for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:46:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by georges.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id Aamb1m01s2khLEN06ambeb; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:46:36 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:42:52 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: hasufell@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8 Message-ID: <20130809124252.12963c52@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <5204B6A9.1080309@gentoo.org> References: <5203A880.1050306@gentoo.org> <5203B190.80306@gentoo.org> <20130808172340.7d2424af@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <5203C908.1000304@gentoo.org> <20130808185357.4208db83@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130808202627.4b474471@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130809020303.GA11215@linux1> <1376033807.30224.21.camel@kanae> <5204B6A9.1080309@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; 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_/OHSwJg8uHyvTToIFkj0_qXz"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: fd4f638a-8a74-4272-8c92-4e56e98ae6ab X-Archives-Hash: d4fce9232d81bce176c565b2e9aed0d7 --Sig_/OHSwJg8uHyvTToIFkj0_qXz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 11:30:17 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > > It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd > > and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. >=20 > I could claim the "design choice" thing for anything as well. That's the whole point about it; because it is their (upstream) design choice, it is not a regression for them. So, the only one here claiming it now to be a regression is you; let's get back to the link you gave http://blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2012/08/22/when-you-should-block-a-stabilizatio= n/ which mentions some types in an example 1) builsystem issue 2) ebuild issue 3) means specific software problem but does not actually define what a regression is; so, because the lack of downstream definition all we can do is follow what upstream does, alternatively discuss this to death but that would be bike shedding. Anyone here can claim here that it is a regression or design choice, but nobody can actually prove it because of the lack of a definition; so, we should just resort to what upstream intends to do in this case. Even assuming the types as a definition, a "specific software problem" is again free for interpretation; so, it doesn't properly define it. > Actually blender upstream does that for the brokenness of their build > system. Now what? I just stop fixing it? Maybe, but then I will > definitely not stabilize it. We're not talking about brokenness here, rather about intents; please note that users in the first place choose for a package because of what upstream intends, there is no obligation for you to keep it unstable because upstream made the design choice to remove a certain use case. If we had to stop stabilization for every use case in the tree that was removed, we wouldn't have any recent version of anything stabilized; why should GNOME 3.8 be an exception to this, I really don't see why... > It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a > _regression_. I could state that the exact opposite easily; so, here it is: It _was_ a major feature, therefore it can not be a regression. It does not matter for Gentoo or its users. Without a definition or consensus, such statements are meaningless. > You see, I am not criticising the work of the gnome team, only the > stabilization matter. I personally don't care about gnome, but about > our policy to a certain extend. > > And I feel our policy is being violated here. Not sure which policy you are referring to; all I am reading are merely opinions, that don't stabilization without any consensus. > Not because you ignore it, but because you disagree. I disagree with you, I do not disagree with any policy; if so, which? > But none of your arguments make any logical sense to me why this > regression should be treated differently. As far as I am aware; there are two sides to this so I can state the exact same that I don't see any logical sense in what you say, so I can just say that you're trying to treat it differently too. There isn't even an agreement that this is an actual regression. > "Upstream does..." is _never_ a reason to say a regression is a > feature. > > It is a reason to not support it in stable arch or even not > at all, depending on the case. Why not? Those reasons are merely your opinions; without evidence or argreement, you can't say it is or isn't. It might or might not be... Let's await for that to decide whether this is a regression, before we start reasoning; otherwise we would be basing ourselves on assumptions. --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/OHSwJg8uHyvTToIFkj0_qXz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSBMesAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9SagIAKe6BSmqIsMvt1EVKFQKUrZq xFV0JPYAQSlWATM6vwf65K2MxxicF7xO6w4nvJNPqMggXYydbk4P92jODazoEUEN cAswm5gmV/xjkOjAeCJ7IzT/8UahoXpjHxNrga+14mBXTMxoYtl8DoZdA7XkvRvM 7Fxn2aaT/TO8z00zfTiCOd3fWbI+2nS5LKUbNinza5M2+LPUBADviokTI2LcI1xo yrMukZCPmctG/WH2Yn220Hu+J+nS5KEFy5l7MxV57aq4BbbXWvQ4bIDM40SGNB7r f3qpQMnQQf5tYKkqo/xvvWKCGQZ3Da+9Lms8WuBNd/wBf6Oc32l5jcaV1oFydQ8= =D0Hx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/OHSwJg8uHyvTToIFkj0_qXz--