| 1 |
On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +0000, Duncan пишет: |
| 3 |
>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as |
| 4 |
>> excerpted: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Duncan schrieb: |
| 7 |
>>>> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day |
| 8 |
>>>> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes stepped on as |
| 9 |
>>>> a result of the broken policy. No more nasty threads about (this) |
| 10 |
>>>> broken policy and unhappy maintainers as a result! =:^) |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Actually removing a package that doesn't violate any (written) rules |
| 13 |
>>> without maintainer consensus could be considered a violation of policy |
| 14 |
>>> too. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml Respect |
| 17 |
>>> existing maintainers: |
| 18 |
>>> Never commit when someone else has clear ownership. Never commit on |
| 19 |
>>> things with unclear ownership until you've tried to clear it up. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Samuli pretends here to act as a part of QA team (although he is not). |
| 22 |
> Actually even whiteboard of stabilization bug tells #at _earliest_ 17 |
| 23 |
> Oct" and thus there is really no sign for rush. This is the case where |
| 24 |
> QA should voice and either explain why fast stabilization of libpng is |
| 25 |
> so important or stop policy breakage. That said it became really common |
| 26 |
> to break our own policies (with no attempts to amend policy). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
full stop. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
you are forcing me to bisect the history of pngcrush. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
in 2007, I grab the package from no-herd: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
then I version bump it and give it to graphics herd to which I'm a team |
| 37 |
member of: |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.3&r2=1.4 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
at this point everything was still fine. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.4&r2=1.5 |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
mattst88, NOT member of graphics team claims owner ship on the package |
| 46 |
without consulting me, or anyone from graphics@ i'm aware of. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
then he version bumps it to latest, which was okay'ish except the |
| 49 |
Makefile was not reviewed at all in files/ directory and most of the -D |
| 50 |
macros were either wrong, or just obsolete. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
at this point we had pngcrush package of non-subtimal quality with |
| 53 |
questionable maintainership. notice that graphics is still in the |
| 54 |
metadata.xml to which i'm still part of. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
then as member of base-system, I bump libpng and want to push something |
| 57 |
new for the distribution. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
pngcrush, the leaf package of graphics@ gets in the way. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
then I sent a message to mattst88 in Freenode what he wants to do with |
| 62 |
the situation. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
never got a reply. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
masked the package. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
what does this has to with qa@ team? well, they might be intrested in |
| 69 |
the non-subtimal commit which skipped the Makefile review, also known as |
| 70 |
"blind commit" -- otherwise it's none of their business. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
so no, you don't get to use this as anykind of weapon against me or |
| 73 |
anyone else involved. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
- Samuli |
Archives