| 1 |
On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote: |
| 2 |
> On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla. |
| 4 |
>> This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue |
| 5 |
>> without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not |
| 6 |
>> interested in the specific topic. |
| 7 |
> While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else |
| 8 |
> as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather |
| 9 |
> than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour |
| 10 |
> in particular packages, eclasses, etc. |
| 11 |
--snip-- |
| 12 |
> Bugzilla isn’t so easily discoverable, given the number of |
| 13 |
> bugs filed; gentoo-dev has the nice property that the |
| 14 |
> maintainers self-select which proposed changes are important |
| 15 |
> enough to announce, which Bugzilla doesn’t do. So if I wanted |
| 16 |
> to be notified of all important changes to core system |
| 17 |
> packages on Bugzilla, today, I would have to (1) choose the |
| 18 |
> set of packages to follow myself, probably missing a few in |
| 19 |
> the process, and (2) filter out the unimportant bug mail |
| 20 |
> which currently never reaches this list at all. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Reading the gentoo-dev list will still be an option. If there's |
| 23 |
a bug already open for a planned change (as often happens when |
| 24 |
blockers are expected, etc.), filing a bug and marking as a |
| 25 |
blocker will be an option. If the behavior is known in |
| 26 |
advance that it will break your configuration or workflow, |
| 27 |
etc. I think it's still fine to file a bug about the oversight |
| 28 |
before implemented occurs. If not appropriate to file as a bug, |
| 29 |
there are project aliases you can mail concerns to. |
| 30 |
{reference below} |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
On the other hand, if it's not obvious there will be breakage, |
| 33 |
then posting to the gentoo-dev list can't prevent it. Also, |
| 34 |
the original proposal did state that non-devs who contribute |
| 35 |
can request post permission, as needed. |
| 36 |
{reference below} |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 39 |
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access |
| 42 |
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer. |
Archives