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 A7BDA1381F3 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:02:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3178421C088; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:02:00 +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 AA9C121C01B for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:01:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-4d08e543.pool.mediaWays.net [77.8.229.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D55433C1EF for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:01:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50BE2C56.6080709@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:01:10 +0100 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121129 Thunderbird/10.0.11 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] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds References: <50BB71DD.4080308@gentoo.org> <50BDAFE2.6000702@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <50BDAFE2.6000702@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3224d157-9133-4509-ab01-3e6df27cbf1d X-Archives-Hash: b26c19a0d835328c06e10eefafa32f92 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/04/2012 05:01 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > foo@gentoo.org Me > Proxy maintainer, assign bugs to proxied maintainer, > cc on bugs, but feel free to just fix the bugs > > > I feel the description field is already overloaded when there is a > proxy situation, maybe it would be best to define a field for this. > Also english isn't primary language for everyone in the world so if > the policy could actually be specific on this it would benefit > everyone. > Please start a new thread, this is unrelated to introducing a _global_ policy on that issue. On 12/04/2012 09:10 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > 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. This certainly depends on the severity of the bug. If you think my text can be improved please provide a new patch or tell me what exactly you would describe differently. The vague character of this policy is a bit on purpose, otherwise you would have to describe every possible case. That's not what I want here. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQvixWAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzigwH/RtjCwIncSB0DREo6rJhV+aV MitPqMpR1N+2GAcNs/Bmt9ocWyw2p2mWoPagAlffp6VAoCCg4ocr6xEEsRJUT0ai xsIBBPC+t+B08GtxdFhv8dWLUrPsVt0N4YwcQ7JmYE8YjDYr6vVxSOBMqmnjX98i Lsls2QgIdadhsQmPkaz/H5lxTPyxeesCNgsWOejvpJMNFpN6jqcpaMb1jwiqJF9g aYpU3LMniHeK92RXBv8t/uyYzRaoYLLEzPqXSXGFgxQ0CXsIF9Ub/230n9xCMHG4 +ep3zLl4VsyZcPkwkatwypfHvBRyBNFP3Kv4Ey0q5ipzNxEbAryfRaPqgOqX4Ds= =eSK5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----