From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R7Ido-0002XR-34 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:11:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C36DF21C0DB; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE5321C028 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61461B401A for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:10:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -4.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.678 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.921, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bMA5yX7jOoFj for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:09:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092961B4009 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:09:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R7Ici-0000W4-TH for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 05:09:53 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 05:09:52 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 05:09:52 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:09:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <201109240002.56070.dilfridge@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 0a70b74 branch-master) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 2e082499678bff690f53a97560104d24 Andreas K. Huettel posted on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:02:50 +0200 as excerpted= : >> It's a mess right now and it just doesn't look right. The bug that >> deals with it was locked from public view: >>=20 >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D383179 >=20 > Is there any good reason why this bug is dev-only? Going over the > contents I dont see any. >=20 > (And we've been bickering in far worse ways on public bugs.) >=20 > > We will not hide problems We will keep our bug report database open for > public view at all times; reports that users file online will > immediately become visible to others. Exceptions are made when we > receive security-related or developer relations information with the > request not to publicize before a certain deadline. > http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml FWIW, thanks, to you for the quote and to Alec W. for unhiding the bug. The bug hiding distressed me and I thought about bringing it here as=20 well, as the logical escalation. I didn't, but I'm glad someone did, and= =20 that "the right thing"[1] was done in response. =3D:^) As for the technical issue, IMO our patching was indeed a bit of the cart= =20 before the horse, but if upstream zlib ends up taking it, in practice=20 it's a tempest in a teapot. And agree or disagree, if we don't trust the= =20 dev who did it, as a practical matter as Gentoo users, we've got bigger=20 problems. =3D:^| That said, between this (being the bug lockout way more than the=20 relatively trivial technical issue) and the changelog thing, I'm honestly= =20 getting a bit worried. I'll leave it at that as that's the bit that=20 SHOULD be non-public, by the contract as well. =3D:^| --- [1] Those who disagree that it was "the right thing" should really=20 consider whether that Gentoo social contract needs changed, then. =20 Because based on it, hiding that bug was and remains "the wrong thing". =20 Of course, the statement that contract makes was one of the things that=20 originally brought me, and I imagine others here, to Gentoo in the first=20 place, and IMO it'd be a sad day for Gentoo were that to change or even=20 to need changed. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman