Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o, gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:06:58
Message-Id: 20091211182739.28626e85@snowcone
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales by Ulrich Mueller
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:14:39 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> > I shall remind you, the Council-approved process for PMS changes is > > to send them to this list, and if unanimous agreement can't be > > reached, then to escalate the issue to the Council. > > > [...] > > > Sorry, but the Council-approved procedure is that patches get sent > > to this list and don't get committed until there aren't objections. > > We don't commit things until everyone's happy with them. > > Can you provide a reference for the above please?
Meetings on 20080911 and 20080828, which lead to the "Reporting Issues" section of PMS.
> > * Since PMS became 'suitable for use', we've never committed works > > in progress to master. We've always used branches for EAPI > > definitions that aren't complete, and we've never committed EAPIs > > that haven't had their wording approved by the Council to master. > > Why are we changing this policy? Where was this policy change > > discussed? > > It's not very helpful to generalise. Let's look at the details, namely > Christian's commits instead:
Yes, let's. We agree that the "most recent EAPI" patch was wrong and shouldn't have been committed, so that's one...
> - "Change minimum required Bash version from 3.0 to 3.2" > This is a patch prepared by tanderson, and fauli only fixed a > technical problem (footnotes) with LaTeX. I happen to have a log of > the discussion in #-dev. Also from your comments in bug 292646 I > got the impression that you had no objections to the change?
I have no objections to the change, although I would have suggested a slightly cleaner wording had I seen the patch before it was applied.
> > * Why is disabling kdebuild-1 by default helpful? Why not take the > > reasonable steps already mentioned first, to ensure that the > > change does not have adverse impact? > > - "Disable kdebuild-1 by default" > This just changes a binary flag from true to false, namely it > disables inclusion of kdebuild in the output document. How can this > change have any adverse impact?
The impact is that those of us using PMS for developing a package manager have to go back and change it. It's not a typo or formatting fix, so it should have gone to the list for review. It doesn't take long to do a quick git send-email, and it does provide a much better degree of quality control. If nothing else, it's also a basic courtesy to other developers on the project. -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature