From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D23F515800A for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 56825E0918; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:10:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B3C9E08DB for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:10:37 +0000 (UTC) References: <9626e2f9-5f57-e061-b3ba-1c1fa95cb868@gentoo.org> <87sf9m9ta5.fsf@gentoo.org> <874jm1pmok.fsf@gentoo.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.4; emacs 29.0.92 From: Sam James To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: obsolete acct-* packages Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:08:17 +0100 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87wmyxnz5m.fsf@gentoo.org> 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 80a12b46-46ca-4e2f-aeff-e1de7d5fb292 X-Archives-Hash: f6ffa439116c1c2a50b6e693c18268b8 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Florian Schmaus writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On 18/07/2023 11.56, Sam James wrote: >> Mike Gilbert writes: >>=20 >>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27=E2=80=AFPM Sam James wrot= e: >>>>> Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a >>>>> policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages? >>>> >>>> Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping >>>> the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there >>>> seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong >>>> to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces >>>> the "don't keep them" path. >>> >>> The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy >>> were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now. >>> >>> Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to= me. >> Pinging someone rather than "forcing the issue" as a first-step is >> customary. > > I am sorry, but it seems that I have to clarify something. > > First, I have "pinged someone." Ping on IRC (in #gentoo-qa, or could PM me), or again on the bug? Someone asked the QA team to make a decision. We haven't yet, as I'd forgot about it. It seems wrong to then just pretend that didn't happen. At least try to get it resolved on that end by pinging again / asking us? > > As of writing this, I was the last to comment on the QA bug about five > months ago, asking why we would want to keep unused acct-* packages > [1]. Since then, this has not been answered, and there have been zero > other replies. That signaled me that there was no interest in pursuing > the matter further. In addition, we have already removed acct-* > packages in the past. > I'm sorry that somebody missed a ping in a FOSS project. But this is probably not the first time it's happened to you. > Secondly, nobody immediately forces anything. > I'm saying that speaking to someone works better than committing something and then asking for discussion. > Sam, I am afraid, but I believe that the situation is different from > how you frame it. > > > The proponents of keeping obsolete acct-* packages have the inventive > to establish their preferred policy. It's a bit aggressive to take action, without pinging before doing so (you did several months ago, that's not really the same thing), to "incentivise" someone.=20 > > Accusing me of not facilitating a QA bug that deals with establishing > a policy I do not favor seems unfair. > I'm not sure I'm doing that. I'm saying that doing this preempts a decision and that a ping would've been polite. > Do you think that a QA bug that has not seen progress in nearly five > months should be able to establish an illegitimate shadow policy? > Come on. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZLaPRV8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZCg6QEA0JFvk3qbtNkcsaYdGuBqeuAXInV86ZAJasTn BjkU76wA/1DVMzXuu5qLer0M036xEqA/bsa/GnYo3zqhudw+K/QI =2/n8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--