1 |
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 20:48 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > > Let's do this the other way around and be react based on facts and not |
5 |
> > > speculations. |
6 |
> > > Let's change the policy for a year for selected packages as I |
7 |
> > > outlined, monitor bugs and after a year see response times, affected |
8 |
> > > users and if downstream patches are accumulated. Then we can decide if |
9 |
> > > we need to patch upstream packages. |
10 |
> > > If we need to patch upstream package anyway, not follow upstream |
11 |
> > > policy and not accepting input for various of permutations and |
12 |
> > > architecture from all users, this discussion is nearly void. |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > ...and for how long did you exactly ignore the standing policy that |
16 |
> > suddenly we need a new testing period? How about we do the opposite |
17 |
> > and you prove a *single* bug found downstream using this method so far? |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > Because so far this discussion is not much different than "let's make |
20 |
> > the ebuild fail for some values of ${RANDOM}, and add extra values when |
21 |
> > users complain". Though the variant with random has probably a greater |
22 |
> > chance of failing when *actual* security issues happen. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> OK, back to personal discussion, unfortunately you question this in |
25 |
> this principal thread. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Personal response: |
28 |
> In all my years in Gentoo, I've never thought the maintainer lose his |
29 |
> judgement of how to maintain a package as long as the he/she provide a |
30 |
> great service to users. |
31 |
> I've never thought or read this (and other) paragraph as a strict |
32 |
> white and black nor the holy bible , but a suggestion of how to |
33 |
> provide a great service to user with the least overhead to maintainer, |
34 |
> the best practice, the common case. |
35 |
> I believe there was no complains from users about these packages, on |
36 |
> the opposite users report issues and are happy when resolved after |
37 |
> proper investigation. |
38 |
> I guess something had changed recently in Gentoo in which QA try to |
39 |
> take the maintainer judgement try to enforce a black and white |
40 |
> perspective and without looking at bug history and other sources. |
41 |
> I believe this is a regression and not a progression, I was very |
42 |
> disappointed to see this new side of Gentoo in which common sense for |
43 |
> a specific case cannot be discussed individually, nor that a fixed bug |
44 |
> is hijacked to discuss a principal issue without opening a separate |
45 |
> formal QA request to discuss properly, address some of the argument |
46 |
> raised by fellow developers and the reaction of requesting to ban |
47 |
> developers without any mature discussion. As you can see this in this |
48 |
> thread is not black and white. |
49 |
> |
50 |
|
51 |
I should point out *once again* that: |
52 |
|
53 |
a. nobody requested banning developers, |
54 |
|
55 |
b. Bugzilla access suspension was requested because of your hostility |
56 |
in closing the bug and not the technical issue in question -- |
57 |
or in other words, to prevent you from closing the bug again. |
58 |
|
59 |
However, if you continue spreading harmful misinformation about my |
60 |
intentions in attempt to prove your point in technical matter, then |
61 |
I believe we have much more serious problem to address here. |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Best regards, |
65 |
Michał Górny |