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 70756138334 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:02:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AA166E0AA3; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:02:42 +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 5832DE0A7D for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from whubbs1.gaikai.biz (unknown [100.42.103.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: williamh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17B5C34C8A3 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (nullmailer pid 9132 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 04 Nov 2019 22:02:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:02:35 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy? Message-ID: <20191104220235.GB8806@whubbs1.dev.av1.gaikai.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <33564bf19f26e1f99d9efca5d1c15c079c01e3d9.camel@gentoo.org> <20191105105009.7d39fc5f@katipo2.lan> 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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tsOsTdHNUZQcU9Ye" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191105105009.7d39fc5f@katipo2.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Archives-Salt: dbec6ae2-6c11-4455-a097-1051a214112e X-Archives-Hash: fd6004588fa2a20fa4e0de69c2db4832 --tsOsTdHNUZQcU9Ye Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kent, On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:50:09AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:53:44 -0500 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: >=20 > > To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the= =20 > > time it would take to vote on each of these policies formally, document= =20 > > them on the wiki, and then move the related checks to ::gentoo/metadata= =20 > > where other package managers can benefit from them (and where they can'= t=20 > > be unilaterally nuked). Having a comprehensive list of policies will=20 > > also help developers who want to Do The Right Thing and who read up on= =20 > > these things proactively. >=20 > I believe the place for these is in the dev-manual[1] >=20 > If not the dev-manual, then if there is some other source of authority > where they end up, there should be some mechanism to relay them to the > dev-manual. >=20 > Its hard to expect people to follow a policy that is mostly codified in > tools and cultural wisdom. You are correct. When I was on the team, the idea was that the devmanual was the cannonical source for all qa policies. I'm not on the team now but I would strongly support this. William >=20 > 1: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/497c28fb2dab0a480c302ba= 966481f4f --tsOsTdHNUZQcU9Ye Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCXcCf9QAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OHViAJ97n8sAEfUHV7JKu7D29DK8+GYLOQCgpmqZGK2Lh0HmM4drtWMDJT8dcCM= =Hd6V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tsOsTdHNUZQcU9Ye--