Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds

["Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org>]

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

On 12/04/2012 12:01 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 05:01 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> 
>> <maintainer> <email>foo@gentoo.org</email> <name>Me</name> 
>> <description>Proxy maintainer, assign bugs to proxied maintainer,
>> cc on bugs, but feel free to just fix the bugs<description> 
>> </maintainer>
> 
>> 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.

I'm sorry but isn't specific policy related to global policy? Why yes,
yes it is.
> 
> 
> 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.

A patch against what? I've not seen a link, only vague references to the
dev manual.
> 
> 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.
> 
If we are vaguely defining a policy of not touching other peoples
packages then the only specific thing in that policy should be what is
exempt (which would be "if xyz is in the metadata.xml then follow those
instructions over this policy").

This is VERY much on topic.  I am really unhappy that people are writing
policy that will get me less help and more work, and I won't be happy
until I have a way to tell others that in the metadata.xml and the
"policy" you are writing refers to it.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=EEh9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----