From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247FF1381F3 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5BDCE096D; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:26:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com (mail-ve0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 233F9E096C for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id da11so5545veb.20 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 04:26:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yCa5Kq0tpoLGf/AiRHfNeHGVKmN9PyZRhj/v1xyHFF4=; b=CBEmH04ZiXIvcJMVbVVnfgoguBNMwXZpfXYnfem2yd6xs40Q9sBIjnGtaZmBZczpfz 7yrAb8OAURh9JrNVN5ailTU/NHhvDDLtDcyeLh1kI6SZrVXh6rFSgl2m0T2NDuwsSc77 i6pIn2uRn1MhWY1mSpD5ET8muRexCXRe62RqS8RZIU9vOiNfEBaNZZS50DnnblM7npVI OaUsUsBz7rFQcZcOtAjszAPtrE9imeJHkGfSyv2MNFkIi3t+k47ji8VgcVsJtWZIrW/8 OPYieLkmJEN8D2r3WNLtpM1wemRDKhEKM85VFgbyv/xh1DBksfDLEnbR66S2b//6uKbJ CXkQ== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.135.227 with SMTP id pv3mr148613veb.21.1372850791322; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 04:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.163.71 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 04:26:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130702145941.GA9610@comet.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> References: <1372625765.17485.18.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca> <20130701005911.GA1936@linux1> <51D14CC1.9080500@gentoo.org> <51D1650F.5070305@gentoo.org> <51D1BB9F.9060600@gentoo.org> <51D1CC91.4060009@gentoo.org> <20130702145941.GA9610@comet.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:26:31 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sWNl9hGf_nXUzV1XBsMPrrJ_Xdw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Questions for Candidates (was: Questioning/Interviewing council nominees) From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 6be48a20-f88e-4943-8671-e4093b2611aa X-Archives-Hash: a88f24d3ddc55598406fa1c3efd876a7 On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > It seems to me that there's a couple of issues that really bother people > here: > > - The maintenance burden of any additional code; and > - Overriding a maintainer's decisions on existing code. > > My suggestion helps to deal with the former, while I believe Rich has > made a good point for the latter as part of larger changes that are > either council-supported or have general consensus. When we voted GLEP > 39 in ourselves (or joined while it existed), we agreed to respect the > decisions of the leadership and structure we chose. I don't think most of the recent controversy has been over existing code, but rather the addition of new code (though a two-line insinto/doins is stretching the meaning of "code"). However, if a controversy broke out over existing code I'd feel the same about it - as long as the changes were sensible and well-supported by a project/etc I would not want maintainers to block them. The original question was, "Do you think package forks or split-packages FOR SINGLE FILES would improve user experience?" (emphasis mine) Rich