On 2019-09-05 22:16, Michał Górny wrote:
>> But as per the way the dev manual is written, he arguably *is*
>> following policy.
>>
>> Stop taking the line of assuming he's trying to be belligerent. 
>
> He says explicitly that he is against fixing devmanual because he likes
> the way he can abuse it right now.

You are the only one adding _abuse_ here. Stop that, thanks. When I
replied to your mail I was just asking... nothing more. I don't
understand why you are reading so much into it.

But yes, I like the current exception for "per-package" eclasses like I
am concerned that a review requirement would cause a significant delay:

Back to my example, imagine we would move pkg_config to new mysql
eclass. If we would bump mysql/percona-server/mariadb package and will
receive bug reports later because upstream changed something causing
pkg_config to fail we would now have to propose a patch, wait 48
hours... i.e. package would be broken for ~72 hours just because of a
policy I don't reject in general (yes, I like reviews) but where I think
exceptions must be possible.

So for my understanding this is not about 'fixing' devmanual. It's about
*changing* devmanual which I *just* pointed out. But whoever will
propose changing devmanual should support such a change because he/she
will probably have to argue for that change. Something I cannot do when
I like status quo like I do currently or have concerns.


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5