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 566EF59CA3 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 797AFE0818; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA28FE07F4 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dra13-4-78-234-166-189.fbx.proxad.net [78.234.166.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9FC4340CC6 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:10:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Alexis Ballier To: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2016-03-13 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:10:31 +0100 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 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201603102341.21613.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <201603091737.08676.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <22241.41842.892835.339449@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <596f63e8-1607-4bab-a6ca-86a14a98ac3b@gentoo.org> <201603102341.21613.dilfridge@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo User-Agent: Trojita/0.6; Qt/5.5.1; xcb; Linux; Gentoo Base System release 2.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 50fd683c-7dd7-4998-bb54-c0e660d74d63 X-Archives-Hash: fc046e5a9cc783a5b7bcbf50663a1723 On Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:41:21 PM CET, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 10. M=C3=A4rz 2016, 20:19:11 schrieb Alexis Ballier: >> Well, you can go into the debate whether perfectly working and needed=20 >> behavior predating PMS which EAPI0 was supposed to normalize is a PMS bug=20= >> or a portage bug, > > And this type of argumentation is *exactly* the reason why I am bringing up= =20 > the agenda topic.=20 > > Either we have a specification (and then we should either stick to it or=20= > improve it) or we don't. Still regularly coming up with "blah blah this was= =20 > before PMS, serious infighting between devs, portage was=20 > perfectly fine, no I=20 > won't fix anything" after 8 (EIGHT) years is not an option anymore.=20 This was clear since the beginning and by cutting my reasonning in the=20 middle you don't get the point *AT ALL*... If you want the council to state that having a spec that does not match=20 reality or reality that does not adhere to the spec is bad, then why not,=20 but that sounds like stating the obvious since this is the definition of a=20= spec that was approved years ago and for which council already stated the=20 need for it even before. > The main reason for the deadline proposal is that maintainers get their=20 > backsides moving.=20 > > Yes one possible fix indeed is a PMS improvement, we all know this probably= =20 > will surpass all deadline time requirements.=20 > > However, if there is no motion in an issue AT ALL, the deadline=20 > should make it=20 > possible to bypass maintainers and delegate a solution to QA at=20 > some point. No=20 > more stalling. You seem to assume that in all the issues there's an evil person blocking=20 improvements. In all the examples I pointed out, nobody is blocking=20 anything, the lack of proper solution is. A deadline does not help moving forward, that's doing the work that does... Alexis.