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 E277E1381F3 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:39:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30CBA21C064; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E47D21C004 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j5so708463bkw.40 for ; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:38:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=G44OKqgT8bwPKRVh3RK3WDNekKjZ2T2IbMgPoLwRf+0=; b=EFZbjJGYnNzT2IMem95vQ74KO0Krshz3qxZwdhicz10wM21SwKlOosXh/AApW5jlFn Rvr9O3Ib/vPneRPPK6rmVWMv7r5h19xTIJc9VguL0BbS1+dEYEsoo/H73dq41wlcboqu n8JJFucXKLKQDpCJRA0Nz9RWIm39UjJ6e6SRN1QpyGzA/JJsFZevqAr6VKtgJ6mNjQuG RM7d+yWitzZmTX2OskjC3um6Gi2uarHh5IObXtuh+TcPM/cf7iBqX69kT9pyRJzzONXS 77TivnhSsn/gwxL+HfT9hkHdto1vx32CT2Rxiseb4kwV+o8WPFhQJpIgMsGL69t190uj O5qg== 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 10.204.148.12 with SMTP id n12mr2047503bkv.138.1354462735883; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:38:55 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.12.28 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 07:38:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50BB71DD.4080308@gentoo.org> References: <50BB71DD.4080308@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:38:55 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pUhPrHF4koLs9mKpKMW-tVoMfO0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 8d0f0010-8c74-4126-b290-3794fb79c09f X-Archives-Hash: 0fdbc3b7b84e1f8ebd03e6d41638698a On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote: > Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and fix > stuff. > From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we thought 2-4 weeks depending on the > severity of the bug is fine. Ofc this should exclude major changes or > delicate packages from base-system/core/toolchain. Seems reasonable - I'd say 2 weeks is plenty. Of course, if the maintainer explicitly rejects the change in a posting on the bug, then it is hands off without some kind of escalation. Non-maintainers who are concerned about a package can always step up to maintain, as long as it involves real commitment. Oh, and on a side note Markos raises a valid point on the bug about whether the devmanual is a good place for policy. The problem is that I'm not sure we really have a good place, especially with the ebuild docs gone in favor of the devmanual now. Rich