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 B15401381F3 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9172AE09F5; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ia0-f180.google.com (mail-ia0-f180.google.com [209.85.210.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EA9AE09BA for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ia0-f180.google.com with SMTP id t29so2113158iag.11 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:43:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=B6nuTA0UZz6S4TpwoaBZHGlryoQ95xW8Sae9+bXN3n4=; b=d3U3y2TvsNueaLNre2F/S8/zq51oegUVtD6B/PTVbHsaxyZny9jrA44sAPCmHo5yw5 hWySBlD+JG7A9rfK8am03Q+xEKxko68EYdzXdzyehlkaKcuYZNi1woC2uXpPs0jXmOqH ARrp/io6XspGbS/tb07CbeE3oGugGiYPFF9fSSszHqsGPvDJQRjr8ecskqWXDdpzIPMz b0mmqfU9RZBANBvJDiNNgrvvyV6UXGXpQ2qj5n2JysXdCC9btjyMHEEG6EQr2VxLwctD erNBmvWtEke+D1107dXpjq79VLVIKd+9rEYTk4CY8NB40Negq46P6qDvc5kNDYMXr/78 1htQ== 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 X-Received: by 10.42.150.131 with SMTP id a3mr12881877icw.8.1366631002660; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.30.234 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:43:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5173F9F7.6050100@gentoo.org> References: <20130419091632.D01152171D@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <20130419153043.30ffc50c@portable> <5173F9F7.6050100@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:43:22 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MQLWom53-A0ubY9Bo-CzaN9oueQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask From: Ben de Groot To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e835873e84904daf193d0 X-Archives-Salt: 19741554-c909-4e05-b2f8-79464b1c4503 X-Archives-Hash: dbbcb5e0e0abe6212055da68549312cd --90e6ba6e835873e84904daf193d0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 21 April 2013 22:38, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > Denis Dupeyron schrieb: > > I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not > > propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being > > actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch > > it without talking to that person or team first. > > I fail to see any wrong behavior here. A bug report was created and a > review > of the changes was requested. The first reaction came after several weeks > after the bug filing, and the first objection almost two months after the > change was applied. > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D455074 > You are missing an important part of the story. See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D455070 where we discuss the same issue for freetype. (Yes I should have been explicit for fontconfi= g too, my bad.) I initially reacted within hours, saying that his proposal was in my eyes not ready yet. I assumed I was clear enough in my refusal, but apparently Micha=C5=82 didn't understand it that way. He then contacted the herd a few weeks later, when I was on holiday, and got Luca's permissio= n to commit, not taking into account he hadn't touched those packages in many years. After I found out, I was a bit pissed off about it, but I was too busy with work to deal with it (and thought it wise to cool down a bit before taking action). I then saw bug reports about the freetype multilib ebuild revision flooding in, and was satisfied after it got masked. But then it got unmasked again (I assume by Micha=C5=82), and when I found some time to take a closer look again at freetype and fontconfig, I decided to mask those versions, as I still don't think they are ready (especially for ebuilds that might go stable soon). > > Then the maintainer came and masked his package, which I see nothing wron= g > with either. Except for the violation of visibility requirements only in > this > particular case. > > I understand this is a bit of a mess, and I'm sorry for my part in it, but I'm not part of the x11 herd, so I would rather leave it up to you to decide how you want to handle this. --=20 Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin --90e6ba6e835873e84904daf193d0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2= 1 April 2013 22:38, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n <chithanh@= gentoo.org> wrote:
Denis Dupeyron schrieb:
> I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive be= haviours will not
> propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being<= br> > actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch > it without talking to that person or team first.

I fail to see any wrong behavior here. A bug report was created and a= review
of the changes was requested. The first reaction came after several weeks after the bug filing, and the first objection almost two months after the change was applied.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D455074

You are missing an important part of the story.
See <= a href=3D"https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D455070">https://bugs.ge= ntoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D455070 where we discuss
the same issue for freetype. (Yes I should have been explicit for fontconfi= g
too, my bad.)

I initially reacted within hours, sayi= ng that his proposal was in my eyes
not ready yet. I assumed = I was clear enough in my refusal, but
apparently Micha=C5=82 didn't understand it that way. He then contacted=
the herd a few weeks later, when I was on holiday, and got Luca's p= ermission
to commit, not taking into account he hadn't touched those= packages in
many years.

After I found out, I was a bit pissed off abo= ut it, but I was too busy with
work to deal with it (and thought it wise= to cool down a bit before taking
action). I then saw bug reports about = the freetype multilib ebuild revision
flooding in, and was satisfied after it got masked.

But t= hen it got unmasked again (I assume by Micha=C5=82), and when I found
so= me time to take a closer look again at freetype and fontconfig, I decided to mask those versions, as I still don't think they are ready (especial= ly for
ebuilds that might go stable soon).

=C2=A0

Then the maintainer came and masked his package, which I see nothing wrong<= br> with either. Except for the violation of visibility requirements only in th= is
particular case.


I understand this is a bit of a mess, and I'm so= rry for my part in it, but I'm
not part of the x11 herd, so I would = rather leave it up to you to decide how
you want to handle this.
--
Cheers,=

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo = Wiki admin
--90e6ba6e835873e84904daf193d0--