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 D943D138334 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A38AFE0C7D; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:00:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com (mail-oi0-f67.google.com [209.85.218.67]) (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 5272AE0BD8 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:00:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f67.google.com with SMTP id v198-v6so13591721oif.9 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K2SNP7V1uBivfs3c1/hPQSBrKIrA60Nj6S/CfRE6YUQ=; b=KZudx5MnS8yMyvMukVKClz1z5Z78qCAuF1rsN3ZKcr0D9xVs/ckOayf5nHjGgZp2nZ 7VXJSRzzs349jVUUgWAozoVEdVIYIJe+W4QjhqjNocrklGBZu/p90i4bYl25wda9XsLw RTpSvAaaVHy8Td9ocWaGrXoe/A8DtygJApL3/stKjXjh5pPAmQzcIXgta8TOBBHrq85O fPcb/0cNu8qj1xTq1YH9sFm8rp1MZcTHXGDgY7B/Ko/0YgkG3bspVnURodF0Lig/1xvm s1qEuQyWRKvKqFsyS36KNFjJ76RhhzOotqVqDin58OYLHYpuqNBXb/IsiXwla1cqtU5s WAEg== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51AS9Bwnk5OIiRoGIWC/5zz/P+nca0akFY77haXUh4KHVDr6An1U vXOTnxQZep35/Y+Cldp42NOyh/RQ7Eqlvv6gyhCNEw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYN5oniK3nj+9jf40qJCilfzno+RBZgHi/CgNcMkj0naf0oyeaNaImV9yjQckoQMnR5wQKfnZyye+s9JjhVCG8= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ec0d:: with SMTP id k13-v6mr10832015oih.236.1536948054065; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 References: <20180909143221.21d784d02f51623e8c57c545@gentoo.org> <3585947.ej1ZtV7eBo@porto> <20180913223451.03b7d65e@sf> <4318377f-9428-d79a-3ba3-5b2c1ad68166@gentoo.org> <1536946390.1087.1.camel@gentoo.org> <1536947617.1087.4.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1536947617.1087.4.camel@gentoo.org> From: Alon Bar-Lev Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:00:41 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ryao@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: e7a09349-00e8-497f-b8df-7ae7018530d5 X-Archives-Hash: 9b937bcc8b2404781c93986aabe7cca6 On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:53 PM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 20:48 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > > > > Let's do this the other way around and be react based on facts and = not > > > > speculations. > > > > Let's change the policy for a year for selected packages as I > > > > outlined, monitor bugs and after a year see response times, affecte= d > > > > users and if downstream patches are accumulated. Then we can decide= if > > > > we need to patch upstream packages. > > > > If we need to patch upstream package anyway, not follow upstream > > > > policy and not accepting input for various of permutations and > > > > architecture from all users, this discussion is nearly void. > > > > > > > > > > ...and for how long did you exactly ignore the standing policy that > > > suddenly we need a new testing period? How about we do the opposite > > > and you prove a *single* bug found downstream using this method so fa= r? > > > > > > Because so far this discussion is not much different than "let's make > > > the ebuild fail for some values of ${RANDOM}, and add extra values wh= en > > > users complain". Though the variant with random has probably a great= er > > > chance of failing when *actual* security issues happen. > > > > OK, back to personal discussion, unfortunately you question this in > > this principal thread. > > > > Personal response: > > In all my years in Gentoo, I've never thought the maintainer lose his > > judgement of how to maintain a package as long as the he/she provide a > > great service to users. > > I've never thought or read this (and other) paragraph as a strict > > white and black nor the holy bible , but a suggestion of how to > > provide a great service to user with the least overhead to maintainer, > > the best practice, the common case. > > I believe there was no complains from users about these packages, on > > the opposite users report issues and are happy when resolved after > > proper investigation. > > I guess something had changed recently in Gentoo in which QA try to > > take the maintainer judgement try to enforce a black and white > > perspective and without looking at bug history and other sources. > > I believe this is a regression and not a progression, I was very > > disappointed to see this new side of Gentoo in which common sense for > > a specific case cannot be discussed individually, nor that a fixed bug > > is hijacked to discuss a principal issue without opening a separate > > formal QA request to discuss properly, address some of the argument > > raised by fellow developers and the reaction of requesting to ban > > developers without any mature discussion. As you can see this in this > > thread is not black and white. > > > > I should point out *once again* that: > > a. nobody requested banning developers, > > b. Bugzilla access suspension was requested because of your hostility > in closing the bug and not the technical issue in question -- > or in other words, to prevent you from closing the bug again. > > However, if you continue spreading harmful misinformation about my > intentions in attempt to prove your point in technical matter, then > I believe we have much more serious problem to address here. Unfortunately you still continue the personal discussion in principal thread. I will not cooperate with that as it missing the point. Throw the entire process you are trying to enforce your view and your interpretation of the process as if enforcing that may have benefit. Your request to ban via bugzilla access was rejected with explanation. The bug that was closed was fixed, if you wanted to have a principal discussion you should had opened a different principal one and discuss the issue in opened mind, reaching to a conclusion that we need to escalate the discussion together. I beg you as I beg you in bugzilla, please do not turn this thread to personal one, it is not productive.