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 980D91381F3 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:23:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACA7621C0A0; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6FD921C006 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:22:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.132] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.242.65.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A59C133D8CE for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50AF94B6.4040909@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:22:30 -0500 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121112 Thunderbird/16.0.2 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] open season on other-dev's packages -- policy change? References: <20121123022210.GE4100@comet.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> <50AF84E9.2020608@gentoo.org> <50AF8916.9070004@gentoo.org> <50AF8CAF.3040008@gentoo.org> <50AF8FA7.2000006@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <50AF8FA7.2000006@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: dd36bcdb-a164-4149-9443-901b611d2045 X-Archives-Hash: e9ed8f15c5554a9b6b1744859fdb95fd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 23/11/12 10:00 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: >> On 23/11/12 09:32 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: >>>> On 22/11/12 11:22 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:22:10PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 11:11 Sun 18 Nov , Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>>>>>> Here's a list of every package where I'm a maintainer >>>>>>> and there is no herd listed (but their might be other >>>>>>> maintainers): >>>>> I didn't say I was dropping any of the packages, merely >>>>> making an explicit list of packages I maintain, that other >>>>> developers are welcome to touch - if they want to take them >>>>> over explicitly, that would be great too. >>>> >>>> >>>> .. For certain things, I think it would be very beneficial >>>> for this to be true (other dev's welcome to touch) across the >>>> tree. Maybe if there is enough general support for it, we >>>> should change our default of "never touch a maintainer's >>>> package without permission of the maintainer/herd", to "OK to >>>> touch unless package metadata explicitly requests not to" >>>> ...? And we can put a tag in the metadata to indicate this >>>> (or even to indicate what other dev's can and can't touch -- >>>> ie, can touch *DEPEND, can bump EAPI, cannot add features, >>>> cannot bump)? >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> What certain things do you have in mind? In wich situation do >>> you see a simple "May i touch the package?/ok for this patch?" >>> as too much to do before touching a package? >> >> >> This works, and when, say, myself and the other dev are on irc >> it's very quick, but then if I don't write it down or communicate >> it to my other couterparts in the herd this permission gets lost >> in the shuffle. I'm just suggesting that if we put it in the >> metadata then it'll be easier to track. > > You can already add a comment in the ebuild or metadata.xml to > explicitly allow everyone to touch it, so there is nothing needed > to allow you or anyone else interested in it doing this now. > > Just reverting this default probably wont happen, since it just > means additional work and issues without any real benefit (like > mass commits to add the notes, missed additions and others touched > the package and other problems). > On 23/11/12 10:10 AM, hasufell wrote: > I tend to agree with tommy. It's also difficult to reflect your > attitude regarding your ebuilds being touched, cause it may differ > depending on the subject of the change and who makes the change. So > in the end it may boil down to a conversation anyway. > > For things like your subslot example I am wondering if it could be > possible to do a dev-announce that packages will be touched by a > group of devs, cause of important migration and that maintainers > who don't feel comfortable with that can require a bug/patch. > > While waiting for answers a few weeks you have the time to test > that stuff in an overlay instead of reporting tons of bugs. All good points. Anyone else care to weigh in or does this seem to be the consensus of everybody? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlCvlLYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD9CAD9FTZBbNUlVDGMDTvojD49nmSq lVz/ZJboibVwNSOWLXsA/jKs9taDeiPcXjArgTrvI5qxGvf/5V95zO0frjg0DCLU =WKz3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----