List Archive: gentoo-council
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Ciaran McCreesh 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?
> * When did it become policy to use the newest EAPI for ebuilds? I
> must've missed that becoming policy -- last I heard, policy was to
> use the oldest EAPI that provides everything you need to write a
> good ebuild.
I agree on this one.
> * 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
It's not very helpful to generalise. Let's look at the details, namely
Christian's commits instead:
- "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?
> * 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?