[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/25/2013 10:50 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote:
> Index: ChangeLog 
> ===================================================================
>
> 
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/media-sound/umurmur/ChangeLog,v
> retrieving revision 1.10 retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -r1.10
> -r1.11 --- ChangeLog	23 Dec 2013 12:15:40 -0000	1.10 +++ ChangeLog
> 25 Dec 2013 09:50:20 -0000	1.11 @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@ # ChangeLog for
> media-sound/umurmur # Copyright 1999-2013 Gentoo Foundation;
> Distributed under the GPL v2 -# $Header:
> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/media-sound/umurmur/ChangeLog,v 1.10
> 2013/12/23 12:15:40 hasufell Exp $ +# $Header:
> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/media-sound/umurmur/ChangeLog,v 1.11
> 2013/12/25 09:50:20 patrick Exp $ + +  25 Dec 2013; Patrick Lauer
> <patrick@gentoo.org> metadata.xml: +  Remove unneeded useflag
> description from metadata.xml
> 
> 23 Dec 2013; Julian Ospald <hasufell@gentoo.org> metadata.xml: add
> unused useflag since the breakage is expected to be temporary
> 
> 
> 
> 

You are interfering with my workflow and I already told you why I kept
the useflag, so stop reverting my commits after I told you the reasons
in a private mail.

QA is more than just running repoman and doing random commits on other
peoples ebuilds. (besides that you already managed to break the
Manifest of this stable package last time)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSus7oAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzDa8H/R14M9fStcoof/tV1+5EdIfH
7kvWCxaOInGNpxqmq+9dUH0Y9PesbnV3KmBJ94sckWiqZpUZm2dA2jVc8+p+WA02
vqtA0UyeUNJ4ZFHjpDNd/miMaXQO0bt08ZICR+f8I7M/j22YBXv1FYvaQMSFQytR
vHokbNFW5DRJt9I8BbJ+ILBNu7At5QVKqeXx97A3/5H/1ipJvS37K3SDBxwx4DFp
v0XeWRF3HQ7cJIPUodQTrejoWtcSmIxoPM9hnB/OAqIOlUsmGbl6egTJXEOtzQS7
FZt6fbcFMk0nYPHAymCVV/XR5KIPsfRkpTNUw/GrWy9iJm1NNGc9ST4NwJO2EtY=
=pCGR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Tom Wijsman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 13:26:16 +0100
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> You are interfering with my workflow and I already told you why I kept
> the useflag, so stop reverting my commits after I told you the reasons
> in a private mail.

Interference goes both ways, that's why both of you are reverting; if
you mask the USE flag then you can keep the description, it is more
preferable than removing the flag from the ebuild (that is even stable).

> QA is more than just running repoman and doing random commits on other
> peoples ebuilds. (besides that you already managed to break the
> Manifest of this stable package last time)

QA is that it is written down (as a mask) that the USE flag is broken;
removing it just hides its brokenness, it might very well fit in your
workflow but if someone else joins maintenance or the package gets
maintained by someone else later "out of sight, out of mind" applies.

- -- 
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSutLSAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9C3MIAKH8JzNIHpAXH8esAKe3EtQ5
HFJDHBPxjfBiAN2IB442rqjH3cfFHPI6EBb4ULb2TRIW2kgTyIGsUrmaPtONm9td
EYT+kAWlyh9OVRHlJ1jYoB2UTixBrdVaNApiMojJ9Uvn3yukSaDf7mW0rf9jxPv3
+92XjmuqTiPybC2qyp/nl6HNXoQ8TfQd+nLZiQm3AWXBR3hhiHDOUrMUlsdHmGFs
qlYMk529NFCGSFENBvooT3xSKUazXe+pjN06TycY9DKk2199dPWOeVYwIAlY1KqW
cuWyj/gqCMo7RSku+lkl/OKkn1NsIAvoA+IKBECjpdgD1/kPVdt6iBapDqh6RHI=
=E8a/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Patrick Lauer]

> 
> You are interfering with my workflow and I already told you why I kept
> the useflag, so stop reverting my commits after I told you the reasons
> in a private mail.

Eh, it's been two days, and the temporary issue is still there ...

Fix your workflow not to rely on repoman warnings being nonfatal, then I
won't have any reason to annoy you.

(And I thought that was a one-time oopsie, not an issue that'll appear
more often)

> QA is more than just running repoman and doing random commits on other
> peoples ebuilds.

Being a dev is more than just doing your thing and ignoring the rest.
I'm getting tired of cleaning up behind people (not only you, it's on
average 2 issues a day I have to figure out and either fix or file
bugs). Don't expect any lenience or tolerance as long as the average is
that bad, I just prune the list of repoman warnings and errors down as
far as possible.

(Today alone I filed 4 bugs for gnome [incomplete gnome-3.6 removal],
had to clean up after a stabilization bug [cups-filters], fixed a ruby
package that had now unsatisfiable ruby_targets [fxruby] ... and maybe
I've even forgotten a thing or two there. See how you adding random
spurious warnings is not improving my mood? ;) )

Have a nice pagan ritual day,

Patrick

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 419 bytes --]

On 26 December 2013 02:16, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I'm getting tired of cleaning up behind people (not only you, it's on
> average 2 issues a day I have to figure out and either fix or file
> bugs)
>

I don't believe anyone is impervious to mistakes ;).

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489812

General purpose condolences for the observation of the celestial passing of
time, :)

-- 
Kent

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 976 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Patrick Lauer]

On 12/25/2013 01:26 PM, hasufell wrote:

> You are interfering with my workflow and I already told you why I kept
> the useflag, so stop reverting my commits after I told you the reasons
> in a private mail.
> 
> QA is more than just running repoman and doing random commits on other
> peoples ebuilds. (besides that you already managed to break the
> Manifest of this stable package last time)
> 

Soooooooooooo ....

  25 Dec 2013; Julian Ospald <hasufell@gentoo.org> metadata.xml:
  revert pseudo-QA commit

  25 Dec 2013; Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> metadata.xml:
  Remove unneeded useflag description from metadata.xml

  23 Dec 2013; Julian Ospald <hasufell@gentoo.org> metadata.xml:
  add unused useflag since the breakage is expected to be temporary


<irker104> AutoRepomanReport for Wed Dec 25 17:22:16 UTC 2013
<irker104> AutoRepomanWarning: media-sound/umurmur/metadata.xml: unused
local USE-description: 'polarssl'


Why the bleeping bleep are you KNOWINGLY introducing a useless
regression that serves no purpose but to annoy some people, and then add
a passive-agressive Changelog entry?

Fix your workflow, man ... and don't cause useless warning spam if you
can avoid it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[hasufell]

On 12/25/2013 02:16 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> 
>>
>> You are interfering with my workflow and I already told you why I kept
>> the useflag, so stop reverting my commits after I told you the reasons
>> in a private mail.
> 
> Eh, it's been two days, and the temporary issue is still there ...
> 
> Fix your workflow not to rely on repoman warnings being nonfatal, then I
> won't have any reason to annoy you.
> 
> (And I thought that was a one-time oopsie, not an issue that'll appear
> more often)
> 
>> QA is more than just running repoman and doing random commits on other
>> peoples ebuilds.
> 
> Being a dev is more than just doing your thing and ignoring the rest.
> I'm getting tired of cleaning up behind people (not only you, it's on
> average 2 issues a day I have to figure out and either fix or file
> bugs). Don't expect any lenience or tolerance as long as the average is
> that bad, I just prune the list of repoman warnings and errors down as
> far as possible.
> 
> (Today alone I filed 4 bugs for gnome [incomplete gnome-3.6 removal],
> had to clean up after a stabilization bug [cups-filters], fixed a ruby
> package that had now unsatisfiable ruby_targets [fxruby] ... and maybe
> I've even forgotten a thing or two there. See how you adding random
> spurious warnings is not improving my mood? ;) )
> 
> Have a nice pagan ritual day,
> 


That is funny that you mention "cleaning up". I remember last time when
you broke 8 ebuilds at once because you just trusted your outdated
repoman warning to be correct. You didn't even file a BUG for me, you
did not contact me and after I told you that it was wrong and that you
should revert it, you didn't.

That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate, you do
not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:25:04 +0100
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> That is funny that you mention "cleaning up". I remember last time
> when you broke 8 ebuilds at once because you just trusted your
> outdated repoman warning to be correct. You didn't even file a BUG
> for me, you did not contact me and after I told you that it was wrong
> and that you should revert it, you didn't.
> 
> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate, you do
> not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.

That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able to
address. You should raise this issue with them rather than accusing
each other on the lists.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[hasufell]

On 12/26/2013 02:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:25:04 +0100
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> That is funny that you mention "cleaning up". I remember last time
>> when you broke 8 ebuilds at once because you just trusted your
>> outdated repoman warning to be correct. You didn't even file a BUG
>> for me, you did not contact me and after I told you that it was wrong
>> and that you should revert it, you didn't.
>>
>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate, you do
>> not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
> 
> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able to
> address. You should raise this issue with them rather than accusing
> each other on the lists.
> 

He is in the QA team. And I don't find it worthwhile doing that thing. I
prefer to contact people directly but it seems that did not work out
very well.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Patrick Lauer]

On 12/26/2013 02:29 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 12/26/2013 02:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:25:04 +0100
>> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> That is funny that you mention "cleaning up". I remember last time
>>> when you broke 8 ebuilds at once because you just trusted your
>>> outdated repoman warning to be correct. You didn't even file a BUG
>>> for me, you did not contact me and after I told you that it was wrong
>>> and that you should revert it, you didn't.
>>>
>>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate, you do
>>> not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
>>
>> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able to
>> address. You should raise this issue with them rather than accusing
>> each other on the lists.
>>
> 
> He is in the QA team. And I don't find it worthwhile doing that thing. I
> prefer to contact people directly but it seems that did not work out
> very well.
> 

Well, either fix repoman to not warn, or fix your workflow not to warn.
I don't find it worthwile doing whatever you're doing, so ... err ... right!

Fixing stuff (especially cosmetic issues) is faster than filing bugs and
then waiting between 10 minutes and 10 days for a response. I need to
cvs up and repoman full anyway, maybe check the Changelog to figure out
if it's this package that changed or the breakage is because of another
package (or profiles) changing. So doing an edit and committing is not
really an unexpected step from there and saves all people involved lots
of time.

I already file enough bugs, no need to file more bugs to fix issues that
shouldn't even be there. And don't expect me to keep track of exceptions
... because then everyone is a special unique snowflake with a good
reason why breaking the rules is ok for this special case.

If you ever get bored feel free to work on reducing
http://packages.gentooexperimental.org/repoman-current-issues.txt
to an empty list, that'd be, like, greaaat.

And I'm just going to not consider why you're the only one who NEEDS to
be special and have repoman not apply ... because that way lies a
madness I'm not willing to tolerate.
(AutoRepoman has been running for 5 months now and so far there's only a
single complaint about me touching packages)

Have a divine day,

Patrick

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2000 bytes --]

Am Wed, 25 Dec 2013 14:16:07 +0100
schrieb Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>:

> 
> > 
> > You are interfering with my workflow and I already told you why I
> > kept the useflag, so stop reverting my commits after I told you the
> > reasons in a private mail.
> 
> Eh, it's been two days, and the temporary issue is still there ...
> 
> Fix your workflow not to rely on repoman warnings being nonfatal,
> then I won't have any reason to annoy you.
> 
> (And I thought that was a one-time oopsie, not an issue that'll appear
> more often)
> 
> > QA is more than just running repoman and doing random commits on
> > other peoples ebuilds.
> 
> Being a dev is more than just doing your thing and ignoring the rest.
> I'm getting tired of cleaning up behind people (not only you, it's on
> average 2 issues a day I have to figure out and either fix or file
> bugs). Don't expect any lenience or tolerance as long as the average
> is that bad, I just prune the list of repoman warnings and errors
> down as far as possible.
> 
> (Today alone I filed 4 bugs for gnome [incomplete gnome-3.6 removal],
> had to clean up after a stabilization bug [cups-filters], fixed a ruby
> package that had now unsatisfiable ruby_targets [fxruby] ... and maybe
> I've even forgotten a thing or two there. See how you adding random
> spurious warnings is not improving my mood? ;) )
> 
> Have a nice pagan ritual day,
> 
> Patrick
> 

Just for the record. I've reintroduces the polarssl USE flag to
media-sound/umurmur ebuilds and package.use.mask-ed the flag until
upstream bug [1] is fixed.
Now please stop this useless "but he has taken my lollipop" kind of
fight.

[1] https://github.com/fatbob313/umurmur/issues/24

Once again, thanks hasufell for taking care of the polarssl issue in
umurmur. Without you it would have completely escaped my attention. ;)

Cheers
-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1605 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 18:37:24 +0100
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 12/25/2013 01:26 PM, hasufell wrote:
> 
> > You are interfering with my workflow and I already told you why I kept
> > the useflag, so stop reverting my commits after I told you the reasons
> > in a private mail.
> > 
> > QA is more than just running repoman and doing random commits on other
> > peoples ebuilds. (besides that you already managed to break the
> > Manifest of this stable package last time)
> > 
> 
> Soooooooooooo ....
> 
>   25 Dec 2013; Julian Ospald <hasufell@gentoo.org> metadata.xml:
>   revert pseudo-QA commit
> 
>   25 Dec 2013; Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> metadata.xml:
>   Remove unneeded useflag description from metadata.xml
> 
>   23 Dec 2013; Julian Ospald <hasufell@gentoo.org> metadata.xml:
>   add unused useflag since the breakage is expected to be temporary
> 
> 
> <irker104> AutoRepomanReport for Wed Dec 25 17:22:16 UTC 2013
> <irker104> AutoRepomanWarning: media-sound/umurmur/metadata.xml: unused
> local USE-description: 'polarssl'
> 
> 
> Why the bleeping bleep are you KNOWINGLY introducing a useless
> regression that serves no purpose but to annoy some people, and then add
> a passive-agressive Changelog entry?
> 
> Fix your workflow, man ... and don't cause useless warning spam if you
> can avoid it.

Oh FFS it's a USE flag.  You guys have bigger fish to fry.


-- 
Ryan Hill                        psn: dirtyepic_sk
   gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org

47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E  7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[vivo75]

On 12/26/13 14:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:25:04 +0100
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> That is funny that you mention "cleaning up". I remember last time
>> when you broke 8 ebuilds at once because you just trusted your
>> outdated repoman warning to be correct. You didn't even file a BUG
>> for me, you did not contact me and after I told you that it was wrong
>> and that you should revert it, you didn't.
>>
>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate, you do
>> not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able to
> address. You should raise this issue with them rather than accusing
> each other on the lists.
>
Ciaranm doing peacekeeping ?!?

The world is really ending in 2013, and he is right too

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 12/26/2013 01:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:25:04 +0100 hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> That is funny that you mention "cleaning up". I remember last
>> time when you broke 8 ebuilds at once because you just trusted
>> your outdated repoman warning to be correct. You didn't even file
>> a BUG for me, you did not contact me and after I told you that it
>> was wrong and that you should revert it, you didn't.
>> 
>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate,
>> you do not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
> 
> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able
> to address. You should raise this issue with them rather than
> accusing each other on the lists.
> 
I completely agree with this. I feel that this thread is a sign that
there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the
developers that cause them. I read the entire thread and I still don't
think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why. Would a
private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations?

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=VsAA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 933 bytes --]


> >> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate,
> >> you do not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
> > 
> > That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able
> > to address. You should raise this issue with them rather than
> > accusing each other on the lists.
> 
> I completely agree with this. I feel that this thread is a sign that
> there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the
> developers that cause them. I read the entire thread and I still don't
> think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why. Would a
> private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations?

Introducing repoman warnings deliberately is wrong. Point. 
QA can do trivial fixes. Point. 

None of these two points needs any discussion.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde)
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Markos Chandras]

On 12/28/2013 03:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 
>>>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate,
>>>> you do not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
>>>
>>> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able
>>> to address. You should raise this issue with them rather than
>>> accusing each other on the lists.
>>
>> I completely agree with this. I feel that this thread is a sign that
>> there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the
>> developers that cause them. I read the entire thread and I still don't
>> think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why. Would a
>> private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations?
> 
> Introducing repoman warnings deliberately is wrong. Point. 
> QA can do trivial fixes. Point. 
> 
> None of these two points needs any discussion.
> 
Certainly, but look at the size and contents of this thread and now tell
me if what you said is clear to everyone. It certainly isn't to the
person who caused the problem so what I am saying is that maybe it's
better first to communicate the problem with him before starting a
public heated discussion.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Tom Wijsman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:11:41 +0000
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I feel that this thread is a sign that
> there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the
> developers that cause them.

This thread can also be perceived as the results of intentionally
introducing and reintroducing a repoman warning; while some will read
this as an accusation, others read this as a regression. And while you
mention us, we're not alone in this happening; but let's not blame...

There are always two sides to this, and we should focus on neither.

Two problems can be seen here, both are very clear; the first is a
repoman warning (which is QA communication), the second are multiple
reverts. The former has been communicated before this ML thread by
Patrick; the latter has been communicated in my very first answer, which
package.use.mask solution has been implemented later by Lars.

> I read the entire thread and I still don't
> think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why.

The discussion is based on some questions that are hard to agree on:

1. How much of a problem is an unused USE flag in metadata.xml? 

2. Should such repoman warnings be fixed? By whom? When? How?

3. Can USE flags actually be removed from stable ebuilds?

4. ...

Because this can yield quite some bike-shedding; the alternative "out of
the box thinking" package.use.mask solution satisfies both parties,
which renders that discussion unnecessary. Nobody has objected this.

> Would a
> private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations?

Yes, people can join #gentoo-qa or mail us and we're happy to discuss.

- -- 
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSvv27AAoJEJWyH81tNOV9ytoIALxo84RfrvER1x8q7rJX7wxP
DcLp50YPWoxngvdrVmw9+ejIakNqlRXujXx2QTt8EHoFu+2YSm1Ww1b4QhWiDk0P
Gsbw7deIfFE8GIG5l624roIDG7+434ACvIJF5WwoMuo199wRJMM7RurIOiDrEyI4
VWg3S83bU9gAcO1qsL0PxR1HK0aDuzqB2MXqbyBpqeX653kkxFn4JWBESp8XFvY0
lDZhQJuucbNYWeO5ir106rtXFTP75D7CkYFH5RYZ3MmuD1eDLRZW/ep4EAa+1j0V
3gm4L/AL4ol+SbBOYsoL9/nn3AB/J9fNDsQFoer7azDjxOzmNm5/5FeBiix/A/I=
=Mxd1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1258 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:44:45 +0000
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> It certainly isn't to the person who caused the problem

Hard to tell from skimming the context, but in his first mail there is
an acknowledgment that there was previous communication between both
persons; it just appears to be that both of them insist or their view.

> so what I am saying is that maybe it's better first to communicate
> the problem with him before starting a public heated discussion.

Communication is fine; it's been told by repoman, a revert and Patrick.

Solutions like pinging every single person for every small change or
filing a bug for every single line that could involve QA is a good way
to burn out the QA team again or create an useless bug backlog.

What really does need a solution here are that "reverts" have happened;
it should be a rule that an action cannot be done twice without
agreement, to force people to rather constructively discuss it instead.

    "'Cause I want it that way..." ~ Backstreet Boys

-- 
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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Patrick Lauer]

> The discussion is based on some questions that are hard to agree on:
> 
> 1. How much of a problem is an unused USE flag in metadata.xml? 

Cosmetic issue. No functional impact.

> 2. Should such repoman warnings be fixed? By whom? When? How?

Yes. You see it, you fix it.

Not fixing cosmetic issues (cf. compiler warnings) leads to more and
more noise until real issues are just drowned in the noise; the only way
to achieve excellence (in terms of quality) is discipline in adhering to
rules and standards obsessively.

If there are (too) many false positives we should add proper annotations
to silence repoman ...

> 3. Can USE flags actually be removed from stable ebuilds?

Usually removing stable ebuilds makes useflags "disappear", rarely does
masking stuff (e.g. old cups) lead to the disappearance of useflags as
they would now be broken

> 4. ...

Do we need to discuss this?

No. It's an amazing waste of time, almost as if we had no real problems
to focus on.
> 
> Because this can yield quite some bike-shedding; the alternative "out of
> the box thinking" package.use.mask solution satisfies both parties,
> which renders that discussion unnecessary. Nobody has objected this.

That is a "fix" specific to this package alone, in the general case it
is not valid.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2948 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:26:47 +0100
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > The discussion is based on some questions that are hard to agree on:
> > 
> > 1. How much of a problem is an unused USE flag in metadata.xml? 
> 
> Cosmetic issue. No functional impact.

This is a description of an unused USE flag instead of an answer;
asked differently, how much does its presence impact quality?

> > 2. Should such repoman warnings be fixed? By whom? When? How?
> 
> Yes. You see it, you fix it.

Once I get around to them, but there are more important things to do.

> Not fixing cosmetic issues (cf. compiler warnings) leads to more and
> more noise until real issues are just drowned in the noise; the only
> way to achieve excellence (in terms of quality) is discipline in
> adhering to rules and standards obsessively.

Does that noise distract us from fixing what really needs fixing?

It seems to me that for example migrating ebuilds to newer eclasses is
much more important than to fix something that's just cosmetic. But it
appears that fixing cosmetic issues is easier and more fun to do...

    "Kill it with fire!"

> If there are (too) many false positives we should add proper
> annotations to silence repoman ...

Are there other false positives than the multi-line readme eclass ones?

> > 3. Can USE flags actually be removed from stable ebuilds?
> 
> Usually removing stable ebuilds makes useflags "disappear", rarely
> does masking stuff (e.g. old cups) lead to the disappearance of
> useflags as they would now be broken

The question is about the removal of an USE flag, not the removal of an
ebuild; it rather addresses changing the ebuild to remove the USE flag,
to address the context of this thread.

> > 4. ...
> 
> Do we need to discuss this?
> 
> No. It's an amazing waste of time, almost as if we had no real
> problems to focus on.

Maybe, maybe not; some parts of it can yield bike-shedding, but other
parts of it can definitely be useful to talk about. Eventually we will
need to discuss as a QA team to focus on getting the harder stuff done;
because well, just shooting at the low hanging fruit and taking the
easy way out and only coming together after "something happened" isn't
the way that works well. This thread is a good demonstration of that...

> > Because this can yield quite some bike-shedding; the alternative
> > "out of the box thinking" package.use.mask solution satisfies both
> > parties, which renders that discussion unnecessary. Nobody has
> > objected this.
> 
> That is a "fix" specific to this package alone, in the general case it
> is not valid.

You either want to keep the USE flag description or you don't.

-- 
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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

[hasufell]

On 12/28/2013 04:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 03:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>>>>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate,
>>>>> you do not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
>>>>
>>>> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able
>>>> to address. You should raise this issue with them rather than
>>>> accusing each other on the lists.
>>>
>>> I completely agree with this. I feel that this thread is a sign that
>>> there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the
>>> developers that cause them. I read the entire thread and I still don't
>>> think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why. Would a
>>> private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations?
>>
>> Introducing repoman warnings deliberately is wrong. Point. 
>> QA can do trivial fixes. Point. 
>>
>> None of these two points needs any discussion.
>>
> Certainly, but look at the size and contents of this thread and now tell
> me if what you said is clear to everyone. It certainly isn't to the
> person who caused the problem so what I am saying is that maybe it's
> better first to communicate the problem with him before starting a
> public heated discussion.
> 

If you read the whole thread, you would know that I did communicate
privately beforehand.

As in 90% of the cases I guess it was still a mistake to post (this) on
dev ML. I definitely do not need your help to address this problem, so
please don't feed this thread any further.