public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:10:10 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50BDAFE2.6000702@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50BB71DD.4080308@gentoo.org>

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

On 12/02/2012 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
> As I was told in my recruiting process we usually don't just fix up
> ebuilds of other devs unless it's trivial, very severe or something.
> 
> The usual process is nothing new: try to contact the maintainer, open a
> bug, set a deadline when you will go and fix yourself.
> 
> Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and fix
> stuff.
>>From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we thought 2-4 weeks depending on the
> severity of the bug is fine. Ofc this should exclude major changes or
> delicate packages from base-system/core/toolchain.
> 
> I tried to document that a bit:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445402
> 
> any objections? This is nothing new, just a clarification of already
> existing policy and a reminder.
> 
> 
If we are going to document this policy and make it official (which
since it's not documented it's not official) then it only makes sense to
have an opt-out option.  I personally don't wish to see my users suffer
for 2-4 weeks because I'm busy and people are pretending to be polite.

I have no issue with this policy, but to do it without an explicit
option to opt-out is not acceptable to me.  I would suggest something in
the metadata.xml under the maintainer section.  We could have a specific
maintainer section : <maintainer><name>help welcome></name></maintainer>
or a specific tag to put under our own maintainer section
<maintainer><name>Rick Farina</name><demeanor>just fix it</demeanor></name>

I currently, and will continue to maintain a completely open policy on
my packages. To write in the rules that this is not acceptable would be
more than rude.

Thanks,
Zero

PS> I don't actually mean for either of those suggestions to be used
mind you, it's just an example.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=ZBY6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-12-04  8:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-12-02 15:21 [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds hasufell
2012-12-02 15:38 ` Rich Freeman
2012-12-02 19:30   ` Markos Chandras
2012-12-04  1:18     ` Ben de Groot
2012-12-04  7:43       ` Ian Whyman
2012-12-04  9:19       ` Markos Chandras
2012-12-04 15:42         ` Alec Warner
2012-12-04 18:54           ` Markos Chandras
2012-12-06 10:53         ` Ben de Groot
2012-12-04  8:10 ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina [this message]
2012-12-04  9:23   ` Markos Chandras
2012-12-04 16:01     ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
2012-12-04 17:06       ` Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds) Diego Elio Pettenò
2012-12-04 17:28         ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
2012-12-04 18:35           ` Sergey Popov
2012-12-04 18:48             ` Diego Elio Pettenò
2012-12-04 18:51           ` Markos Chandras
2012-12-06 11:02             ` Ben de Groot
2012-12-06 13:28               ` Markos Chandras
2012-12-06 15:27                 ` Peter Stuge
2012-12-06 15:54                   ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-12-06 16:04                     ` Peter Stuge
2012-12-06 19:07                   ` Markos Chandras
2012-12-08 17:48             ` Jeroen Roovers
2012-12-04 17:01   ` [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds hasufell
2012-12-04 17:17     ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
2012-12-04 17:32       ` hasufell
2012-12-04 17:46         ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
2012-12-04 18:17           ` hasufell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=50BDAFE2.6000702@gentoo.org \
    --to=zerochaos@gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox