| 1 |
On 02/10/11 19:02, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all, *if |
| 3 |
>> the package fails to build*. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for killing |
| 6 |
whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must be |
| 7 |
*always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is going to |
| 8 |
be masked & removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the matter |
| 9 |
shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
>> We're not talking about a single problem with a single package. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yes, you are completely right regarding the ebuilds. I do not dispute at all |
| 14 |
> that masking them is a correct way of action. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> However we are talking about interaction of human beings here. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> What I was trying to say: _If_ you have coordinated this with the maintainer, |
| 19 |
> it should be worth the effort to add two words to the email just to mention |
| 20 |
> this. It would even strengthen your argumentative position! |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> In general, we have had the discussion a few times here already whether |
| 23 |
> briefness/conciseness or politeness/additional information is more important. |
| 24 |
> I agree that this may be a cultural thing. But then, normally the consensus |
| 25 |
> is to rather err on the side of caution... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's usually better to be overly verbose in such cases, so yes: if maintainer |
| 28 |
said it's ok then please mention that in mask message - it's just few keystrokes |
| 29 |
more. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 |
| 33 |
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache... |
Archives