On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:06:13 +0300 Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote: > It should have been... > > "OK, nothing is broken here, nothing for qa@ to do, looks like > ssuominen did everything for us." That's exactly what I did; having him talk to you first, I did not state anything to be broken or that the QA team must do something. As to whether what you did is alright to the maintainer, that depends on your and the arch team's response; given you override both of them on a package that you don't maintain, I can't just make a bold claim that "did everything for us" to be OK. It really depends on the motives... > Instead if you insisted on mangling the issue and shoving the policies > up in the face, No, I quoted the documentation for the case at hand. > and when you were pointed out the major arches leads have given an > exception for stabilizing packages, you didn't apology for the waste > of time, instead, you continued with mangling the issue futher, > accomplishing nothing but wasting everyones valuable time. That exception does not apply to this case, I also get a whole backlog on IRC in return for my Comment #3; therefore, I continue to further clarify what is going on, because you were upset regarding kingtaco's rule. That rule is known to me as it has been told to me by hwoarang during my recruitment; you directly assumed me to not know that rule, as well as appear to use it in a context that the rule isn't applicable. I'm expecting apologies from you too, given the statements that I've quoted in the sub thread, it's a waste of valuable time to everyone involved, both you and me; so, I do apologize for trying to help out. You know me well enough to know that I'm not messing with your work, at least not intentionally; if you do see it, feel free to /query me. Please consider to apologize to me in return... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D