From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7B2F138334 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E14CE08FA; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:08:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1383E0828 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from katipo2.lan (unknown [203.86.205.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kentnl) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5D8034C1C2 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 17:07:57 +1300 From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers Message-ID: <20191022170757.123348fa@katipo2.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20191022133642.41590ee5@katipo2.lan> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/6xyzjRyGdXYHK=gXBUSOyq4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-Archives-Salt: 1adf87fb-9f14-4fe4-bac1-6f93ffe18697 X-Archives-Hash: 30638e16df8e0de5909b23b2a6703237 --Sig_/6xyzjRyGdXYHK=gXBUSOyq4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:58:51 -0700 Matt Turner wrote: > I'm not sure what this is in reference to so it seems to be a > non-sequitur, but I like the policy of at least waiting a day for > review of non-critical fixes. Phrased another way, let people in every > timezone have a chance. Its not aimed so much at the person writing this proposal, but more so, something that has happened before and was annoying and I had to have annoying conversations about why this was not-ok, where the agent in question didn't attempt to reach out to any team member of a very critical package before "just doing it". The nature of the change *was* simple enough that had we seen it, we'd have ACKed it easily. But the need to get lucky and spot the commit in the history and review it after-the-fact hoping the agent didn't break anything is where this is "not-ok". Yes, I hate to have to re-iterate in policy behaviour that I consider to be a sensible reasonable default... but it turns out, not everyone has that same sensibility. I'm fine with a policy that allows for non-maintainer contributions, just the stipulations of "try contact the maintainer, wait a reasonable amount of time based on the overall combination of that packages importance and the effective availability of people who maintain it to even respond to a ping". Because the fact is, non-maintainers have substantially less understanding of the total net of complexities, both in portage and outside of portage (by way of project specific tracking projects), and they're less equipped to make a judgement call as to wether or not a change that looks trivial, is trivial in the grand scheme of things. ( For instance, tweaking the package-keywords entries on bulk keyword request I filed riles me up, because I need a lot of tooling to maintain that stuff, and currently, other people tweaking stuff that is outside their responsibilities messes with my ability to do this effectively. And this isn't even visible 'in portage', its just more of the same pattern of 'touching stuff that's not your responsibility to touch without contacting the people whos responsibility it is' ) --Sig_/6xyzjRyGdXYHK=gXBUSOyq4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEgdrME8Lrmai3DXYJda6SGagVg7UFAl2ugJ0ACgkQda6SGagV g7XxdA//TrPucKrZHockaw8pWTtBH7w5umJig8v3GZBtbcpcFh2ScyGp8oqPygWv Bim3kfyfQH6EgxytpjaB3023vBUKxMZQf2PlAcw93ez/CbT59XXDDUjNDTXKVDEx Vvbm9dB+WM1pIStQnnUU7t3teIvaWQ0YoUn2Yw8OMa2QLgG4Kp5qbRwUVt9GliNv Pt1WHshRCkXp2mnqcn6Pdji3J9+XGzNHmLivzMeCepk+ZcbBkKZkLETI32gwkLE9 YY7ZJK11tqt4ruOcjnptSWp3FoeoWbnZQ6nlaFKGZq+ZOUyQ2WLUKrw98gWLrl9l db5/n0lzcHroZ3fLCzP2wDXAamxVyOxg7j4QyLfkka+UD866P4jPGUtBdUqkZC+i 7ENui/0T4DHfTYUcTZ63ElfpbEXgiyCAjs2nd2dXkpJBGTpMe2iA8QXrcqYNeeYD g4R6fo/wvLSc5FiQIW5qUSgqgFPm6Hk0JQf6Q78XOOfleMFFGE+oPHkoRfBrMXXa JIc6zNeEhCqa2Lf7mZOKc5lNymHQEDXchLdkSrAne7EB15V89PLIR0q4VojS8TtE MfaePVpMCSVLzGLZfD2oGU8XcHKcgsaRj5yc9ojJ12HqLLvGpSPa7lAlHC/83Sza g0wOI0uXvDXUwTkODZbNyJMonB0afbevBOBsvUl/Zza7ygAWNo0= =7aSk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/6xyzjRyGdXYHK=gXBUSOyq4--