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 2DEE71381F3 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:45:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A2AF21C01D; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:45:31 +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 AB1E921C008 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (pool-71-245-176-92.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net [71.245.176.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zerochaos) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E3DA33D8FF for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50BE36D8.1090909@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:46:00 -0500 From: "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 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> <50BE2C56.6080709@gentoo.org> <50BE3010.108@gentoo.org> <50BE3398.8070104@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <50BE3398.8070104@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 36f158e8-3301-46a1-a948-ee98373b7fef X-Archives-Hash: 58ac0fbef5a9927053bbedb3ba8ce7a1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/04/2012 12:32 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 12/04/2012 06:17 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > >> I'm sorry but isn't specific policy related to global policy? Why >> yes, yes it is. > > > Unless they conflict, then no. > > >>> 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. > > You missed to look at the initial post which refers to > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445402 > which includes a patch for the devmanual. > You are correct. I'm going to skip the back and forth on the mailing list about why, and simply propose my changes on the bug. This mail is intended only as a pointer to that fact. Thanks, Zero > >>> 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. > > > The global policy is a general policy and does not overrule any > developer saying "touch my packages at will". That would not make sense. > There are already numerous ways to do that, in the ebuild and in the > description field in metadata.xml. > If you want more ways to communicate that to other devs, then propose > something, open a bug, open a new thread. > > So what in this policy do you disagree with? This is _not_ just about > your own packages, this is a tree-wide policy which is more or less > already in action. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQvjbYAAoJEKXdFCfdEflK3kwP+gOpmiyJ0sbb+UNLRSgClsLb nDC+6AmAY4ZFk0KTfjY/s8CYJ+fBWzHD1hKiT0akrb1oowMH3qcDlw7EibWUeQeE uQ+SDrBjzEJNCtfKaRH69h/Lp0OiSKC1KENRfI1sJqY9URPgL5arYsXXSZjLraGR /LsgnwPQd4z1TewkPA5FEUah2nAXj/BGI8t2c+h0iq8eD5bCv88hjwivdiP2xKLf DNe7fj6KItH91Di43n+hr1B6EP50GpOwW+FBSkpbAfrgcoWuBy0hoSEoKQNgsDy3 JMpT2DHlxaTj2t3ogIA886249hCfiSjteoUaJ3GivMX+FXMSjVNIkNckrkZ+/u75 D0XecB8wJdhiMheyQ2rELsA0dPPcHjJCeIBa7Mmv5h++vEjFkGe8D8AlozK6AodI y1ZsLVLdCKpVvikLkDIN17KxqyIZGSDbrkminqgZVdngbd5HHIhOfMvlsnPw9tzP bv4RFbbiDPl9Q/WomvjO4ayKgg+WHToHi0TwkMFK79TQYAkOcH39THjwcEzY1q0L 4TGPhjP3X5Nkp9CSA20Z3sD2Y9maG44wZyosa/PXUJg3xNQrZQ8xkMner5tcp+0R ozuS/ampoGDdxsR3o+8aIeQ6dDOtDX+j2T4teoMYz7u5dw8cJ7ui09QN0tsIm5Wg 1X5iMIMC0rly2VC3KOQC =qxgs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----