Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2454 bytes --]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:50:50 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > * Stop committing things that aren't typo fixes without posting them
> > to this list for review.
> 
>  They are still administrative things reflecting a council decision
> and setting the repo to official document generation by default.

So? If it's not a typo or trivial formatting fix, you send it out for
review. Administrative or not, you got it wrong, and you went ahead and
committed it even after I'd told you to wait until things had settled
down.

Admit that you screwed up, and make sure it doesn't happen again. Stop
trying to defend the indefensible.

> Disable kdebuild-1 by default: We had the discussion several times and
> your only argument now is that there might be consumers of an
> never-approved EAPI out there.

And, as per procedure, there was not consensus on it so you should not
have committed it.

> 3 to 4 move: Purely administrative and has been worked on by two
> people (ulm and myself).

Not purely administrative at all. For starters, you introduced a whole
load of todo notes into the main document, which we've deliberately not
been doing. Second, I'd already told you not to commit it until the
whole "what exactly is in EAPI 3" thing had been sorted out, which
still hasn't happened -- Portage and the Council are in disagreement,
and past experience strongly suggests that it isn't necessarily the
Council that's going to come out on top here...

> Anyway, yes, reviewing is necessary, but if essential changes from my
> point of view are blocked or stonewalled through that means, I may
> choose to take action.eas

Your point of view isn't relevant when it's wrong. You're supposed to
be working with other people here, not committing first and then
tidying up the mess later.

> > * Don't mess with kdebuild until you're sure that no-one has any
> >   kdebuild packages installed.
> 
>  Don't be too academic.  To be sure is not possible.  And please don't
> speak about bridge construction and failure possibilites when you
> don't know about how an engineering process works.

You could have achieved a high degree of confidence with very little
difficulty. Instead, this whole mess is spilling over and affecting
users, and wasting far too much of a lot of people's time for something
that should have been done without any mess or user impact.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]