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 90031138334 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:15:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B0632E08C4; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 63D9EE0841 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 679CD34CF1D for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:15:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Why adding python3_8 to Gentoo sucks? To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <4798502.u5CIKBo2SD@t490> <7b0a4f20cb73bbbd7acb3e1efd7fe9f541ccd2cf.camel@gentoo.org> <4009341.1O8DcbvQnu@t490> <9749c9eebb1531ac05ad615edb621e92d9158052.camel@gentoo.org> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:15:46 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.1 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9749c9eebb1531ac05ad615edb621e92d9158052.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: a2fd4911-2272-4531-b6c8-09917f2bbcfc X-Archives-Hash: f3235c4505a0d4908905b4292e8523f6 On 11/16/19 4:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > More precisely, this is in context of dependency corrections. There is > no need to go through stabilization to restrict too broad dependency > specifications, while stable users hit the issue for the next two > months. > The word "dependency" doesn't appear on that page before the line that I have a problem with. I'm not arguing against common sense: if you need to fix something that's completely broken in a stable ebuild and if that fix requires a new revision, then do a new (straight to stable) revision. However, that's a rare situation, and the bullet point doesn't make it clear that it's referring to a specific rare situation that should be ignored 99% of the time in favor of the first bullet point. To make matters worse, the fact that you can push commits straight-to-stable to fix a bad issue in the stable tree is completely independent of whether or not you make a new revision. You could push an entirely new version with the same goal. So the fact that the exception to the rule appears as a bullet point on the "ebuild revisions" page only sows further confusion. When people pull up that page, that want a simple heuristic to follow, not a legal document that they have to decode for half an hour before they can fix a bug.