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 TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BBB31396D9 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:28:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36004E0E56; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:28:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x22d.google.com (mail-yw0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8854E0E00 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x20so5204721ywg.4 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:28:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Kl4vbFJbelHiRmDOKak2ONm38HPz318pSUEbsEMSzPo=; b=taBzYPnq6yz/FJ11MpJyyBgWbKJagoMOCHLlO7FxQfR2UEJ8mC68EvKqlP4ylr4P7l xV1geS7gYOAFmn51+JW8VmLwNVDHgvW9sniW/qfdaXWC1RTvXudynqNjwJVHMzHYOv2Y 1GRcWCmEtCd1pPqz6jqrFIFzRtFHJ3kXhz/CsjhRkG08UemElB94GsUAilOeg2AraWzg FR7pppGZs8n/kKuqvQQBgcC2PdRuQmBRz5kBZoP1IyeyfUk000zT6j9/yRC/uP4/pt+4 9JChQ5Et3jJK48Kg0rZqOwgVzNppUDynrddvnntJYDEWElEoXlD19mSq5jLibqO+fUpl vdLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Kl4vbFJbelHiRmDOKak2ONm38HPz318pSUEbsEMSzPo=; b=i7UunvZv/q7rFW5rAva3CEEZRu5pFFa564d3iNaui/9aWjZLrCcjP/wkcy5uZXg2wW OTSAWjMUx2+BUtYAHVGZIQY05sAntb5eKQcHbnFUv3Jol+f8+nyx6ZGxkVnTizFkfWwG 7dWSTIsgADLDGO86q6UbPQHRO7B9/QpaggdHOx/SuQBO7tMLtaCG1Nk+JjCUBZvTpUN9 sDm+bMaJmp1oLzc63O/k3y59mpyIAgTJaYJzGJ5Wdx3wIHWMAVeM0BNoPbhKDIG5NfPL 6B6hAWq0PYUZsnItkxDwehSaq4t/ohWDDfcHADTb7/uqzmiLR9H768Q2X/59HDFOt27e XbMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4LS/aOg88e8pF2fCFqjmpp3q7sd0MBeX/GVtQRQhFt7hf7HcAb v+xHap+u1PzQ4mUafYmYenTjHCZa7egvCXwbO8g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaLcwHJcdtigw/TSwdhdX2pjia4HYKVNa9AW+kOWotJZWr1y8me3QwUHdeOLuNOL/xb9YIlvhw+rFemhh+8fSM= X-Received: by 10.129.37.11 with SMTP id l11mr9315491ywl.156.1511238507595; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:28:27 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.13.246.132 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:28:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: R0b0t1 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:28:27 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes: validation of single hash per MANIFESTx_REQUIRED_HASH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 5488d958-5861-400c-8c85-2858fc3cfcd1 X-Archives-Hash: abaf2de8e686b7c7b618d691cc42e40c On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:15 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: >> What I wanted to avoid was something I encountered on the GCC mailing >> list: When I asked why GCJ was removed, I was told that it was hard to >> maintain. When I asked for an example of past maintenance issues (and >> made it clear I had no interest in disputing whether the issues were >> valid or not) I received no reply from the maintainer except his >> original answer, leaving me to wonder whether GCJ was actually hard to >> maintain. >> >> I have seen similar exchanges associated with other projects. > > When you have no standing in the project, there's little incentive to > justify one's actions and decisions to you. > No, but common courtesy would be to provide a short answer. If what I have requested is more work than the individual wants to undertake they would be free to say so (which is why I was confused, I only expected a sentence or two, and this is why I felt I should explain robbat2's answer was better than I expected). At the same time, I aim to only ask questions that I feel the other person would have already considered. In this case, if the decision is the right one, then a coherent explanation of why the actions being taken are being taken should already exist in some form. If they don't, then why is action being taken? There is another comment of mine on this list where I asked a developer why a package was being dropped. I had no intention of disputing their decision, but I felt the given reason was too vague to be useful. Their response was maybe two sentences and added something like "upstream is being difficult." That seemed fine. Cheers, R0b0t1