On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:14:39 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.