Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

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

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

On 02/05/2014 04:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Against my better judgment...
>>
>> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600
>>> Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
>>>>> Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up.  Instead of
>>>>>> having something working we should just remove ebuilds of
>>>>>> working packages.
>>>>>
>>>>> s/should/could/ s/ebuilds/stable keyword or last stable version/
>>>>>
>>>>> It is at the maintainer's discretion; and such decision is to
>>>>> make it possible for a maintainer to move on when he or she can
>>>>> no longer guarantee a working ebuild, to stop being
>>>>> progress-blocked by it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit.
>>>
>>> Why is this pure and utter bullshit?
>>
>> Because I'm attempting to have a discussion with a brick wall.
> 
> Can you please keep yourself to responses about the subject as well as
> give reasoning for them?  That way, we can make the discussion feel
> less solid and more fluent; I'll have to ask again, why a brick wall?
> 
>>>> Keeping it around for "slower" arches does NOT block progress.
>>>
>>> Why is keeping it around for "slower" arches not blocking progress?
>>>
>> Let's see... having the software at least available, versus not having
>> access to it at all... which one is progress...  THINK TOM THINK.
> 
> Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old
> versions sink all your time really stops progress to a dead halt.
> 

Your logic isn't flawed here, it's entirely missing.  If version Y is
stable on all arches but one, and that version is still using version X
that doesn't affect any of the other arches at all.

If the maintainer doesn't wish to support version X any longer then they
can close bugs wontfix.  Removing the last stable version on an arch
from the tree is against policy.

>>>> I have intimate knowledge with what ACTUALLY happens when people
>>>> pull this bullshit - and that is a system that I can no longer
>>>> actually work on.
>>>
>>> That is also what happens when a maintainer keeps around old
>>> versions, as well as old bugs and support for those old versions;
>>> as by doing so, the attention towards newer versions is lost which
>>> causes much huger breakage than the one you have just brought up.
>>> Manpower is limited.
>>>
>>
>> And we attempted to come up with a solution for this, however due to
>> the wording of a page on the interwebs that solution is 100%
>> unacceptable *to you*, a person who is unaffected by it.
> 
> The last discussion has shown policy breach by bending words around.
> 
> Can you tell why it is acceptable in a way that doesn't breach policy?
> 
>>>> And instead of working towards a fix that actually works
>>>> for people who are ACTUALLY affected by the shitty policy, you
>>>> hide behind definitions and pedantry.  
>>>
>>> Why do you think this about the current and/or suggested
>>> solution(s)?
>>>
>>>> I'm now going to take a break from Gentoo development because this
>>>> thread has seriously caused my blood to boil based on comments
>>>> from the peanut gallery (you) where things don't actually affect
>>>> your day to day work, but your actions do affect mine.
>>>
>>> Why? How and why are your actions affected by the QA team's actions?
>>>
>> Not the QA team's actions.  YOURS. YOUR actions and responses in this
>> thread.  And the fact that the QA team allows you to continue to be on
>> it, despite your obvious lack of interest in ACTUALLY having quality
>> assurance. My actions are affected by it because I have to continue
>> to attempt to discuss the issue with others who actually give a shit,
>> and you just swoop in and say no, that absolutely is unacceptable as
>> a solution
> 
> The policy is made by the QA team; you are attempting to object to the
> policy, therefore this is the QA team's action. This is their action.

Please don't claim you speak for the QA team when in fact, you have not
discussed it with any of us, and the QA lead told you to cool it on irc
hours ago.  You are speaking for yourself here and no one else.  There
is NO policy that allows for dropping a stable ebuild without masks,
discussion, and significant passage of time.
> 
> It is rather that I ask question to clarify what you are trying to say
> as to get more useful and meaningful responses; but what I receive in
> return is "pure and utter bullshit" on a "brick wall", maybe someone
> else would say "no" here but if you take a closer look this as well as
> the previous mail contains multiple questions for you.
> 
> These questions show interest in assuring quality here; it's actually
> what makes up for a defensive style of discussion, making sure that we
> keep our quality as opposed to applying the first interesting solution
> that we come across. If you deem the QA team's policy doesn't do that,
> and that it has a detriment in quality; can you please let us know why?
> 

Again, there is no policy that allows you to drop a stable package on an
arch without a whole lot of things that I definitely never say happen.
Honestly, if I even knew what you two were discussing in specific I'd
likely be reverting the stupid drop instead of pointing out things in
this thread which is wasting my time, and everyone else's.

>> (even though it doesn't affect me!) because this page here says that
>> it can't
>> - we can change that definition if you'd like.  Instead of the line
>> saying:
>>
>> The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
>> which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs.
>>
>> Would changing it to read
>>
>> The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
>> which are not for use on unlisted archs.
>>
>> Would that make it acceptable? 
> 
> Feel free to propose that to the QA team and / or the Gentoo Council.

No changes are required. Everyone with 2 brain cells knows that -* means
"cannot work on other arches". Things like binary packages, etc.


Now, before you continue "discussing" this issue here on the list,
perhaps you should turn around and talk to the QA team about what needs
changed and discussed.

thanks,
Zero_Chaos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=ezms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----