From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-71949-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3FE138454
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:50:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 39752E08D2;
Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:50:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178])
(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 45C44E0893
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:50:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so65691739ioi.3
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=lhOa2/EHHylwalXq98uk6jiNHOZYPCdb/+Gn4oZkXug=;
b=a0OfDprPCJGR37tLFZaHRVAWZo3uHQbgq7RYyoWizkZJRCz5Qy+qaajIlhrySHUkIC
UmgxA1Egy8OT4jjQOtNwMN+ErrcpFtyAJOgLr8CpUOJdZUDAs2VLi0XwtOITjku7/tCY
rw7oDadJkeBUI2LEmmVxbz4y5j7sSskf786KiH9C3sAYrXfidu+fIM7ri1JUvZi47k1c
7dpfF+WWbpUibScdU+AI0kSzWcwPuI/rqetFLfyGWRTv8r7opP/i6NEtshR1NSLQLvor
xi3Er2JJ52tEK8GXGb6XO5OQLNMlhl3iPdRFbnPrm31rda8qRG/N7tVqojNrC5+WH3b1
oE8w==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.28.144 with SMTP id c138mr62973204ioc.93.1441900207185;
Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.103.70 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAr7Pr_RW9J3W6E-4JLe=PJnHZBTuELOa=EM+BBJm+vKkaznfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55EFDDAD.9030502@gentoo.org>
<55EFDEC7.1070403@gentoo.org>
<55F00BFD.7050804@gentoo.org>
<55F12159.3020506@gentoo.org>
<55F1439E.1070002@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_kMxJ4mKE88-R9BwAG0PMrrB6j_HR87f9uWFvNH-hCWvw@mail.gmail.com>
<55F16059.9090502@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_nE8E_qKcB3va=iefaMKWTT1HjCgvppOH7C69tw5YS5vw@mail.gmail.com>
<55F173F3.7040806@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_=_d89aMDDBvR9mBqmFe528DtHhbCq8C11cQyWS3i2+PQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55F17885.2050103@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_njZ-o7B_W-87KFh_LYZ-J4zKmQLw5SLEi-rzVQpy6YQw@mail.gmail.com>
<55F17D51.1040500@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_=Eo98=vP9HTBm72=KxK_VUrB_CYLs=Hu5Qa9iK-JPOPw@mail.gmail.com>
<55F1A359.7050007@gentoo.org>
<CAAr7Pr_RW9J3W6E-4JLe=PJnHZBTuELOa=EM+BBJm+vKkaznfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:50:07 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Z-yeC7NZsxnoSM1F7Rt03TVIa-4
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_neqtBGuEOFsjyx+be_XoVdbaE9DwKtxWwy2qc1fZChgg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 144c9457-5454-4e9d-9bfb-5a756ea46979
X-Archives-Hash: a7be8d03ac8dd04f647abb6f424e8084
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If this affects tree consistency and usability, then it is not just up
>> to the maintainers.
>
> There are lots of topics where I concede that QA has a point and can utilize
> its influence; but 'consistency and usability' are not topics I would
> normally expect them to impose on developers.
>
Well, consistency as far as it involves compliance with standards
(PMS, tree policies, etc) certainly is fair game. I don't think they
always need to be the ones creating the rules, though.
In any case, the whole versioned toolkit (gtk/qt/etc) flag issue is on
the council agenda. I think this is an area that would benefit from a
policy, whether or not I end up agreeing with whatever the policy ends
up being.
Even if we end up deciding to push to not use versioned flags, we may
still end up having them for one-offs, and we'll still need policy on
how to properly control whether the gui gets built or not, and so on.
If we at least have a standard practice things will be easier on
everybody, and this is bigger than any one Gentoo team. Of course
once a policy is established QA should by all means enforce it.
Also, I know that QA tends to get some knee-jerk reactions, but when
QA announces a policy it isn't like this is the end of the
conversation. If you think they're making a mistake, you can always
talk to the QA lead, and appeal to the council. For the most part I
think most of us try to be practical, even if we sometimes create a
mess before we realize what we're getting into.
--
Rich