1 |
On 10/11/2011 07:10 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
2 |
> On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: |
3 |
>> В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +0000, Duncan пишет: |
4 |
>>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as |
5 |
>>> excerpted: |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>>> Duncan schrieb: |
8 |
>>>>> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day |
9 |
>>>>> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes stepped on as |
10 |
>>>>> a result of the broken policy. No more nasty threads about (this) |
11 |
>>>>> broken policy and unhappy maintainers as a result! =:^) |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>>> Actually removing a package that doesn't violate any (written) rules |
14 |
>>>> without maintainer consensus could be considered a violation of policy |
15 |
>>>> too. |
16 |
>>>> |
17 |
>>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml Respect |
18 |
>>>> existing maintainers: |
19 |
>>>> Never commit when someone else has clear ownership. Never commit on |
20 |
>>>> things with unclear ownership until you've tried to clear it up. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Samuli pretends here to act as a part of QA team (although he is not). |
23 |
>> Actually even whiteboard of stabilization bug tells #at _earliest_ 17 |
24 |
>> Oct" and thus there is really no sign for rush. This is the case where |
25 |
>> QA should voice and either explain why fast stabilization of libpng is |
26 |
>> so important or stop policy breakage. That said it became really common |
27 |
>> to break our own policies (with no attempts to amend policy). |
28 |
> |
29 |
> full stop. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> you are forcing me to bisect the history of pngcrush. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> in 2007, I grab the package from no-herd: |
34 |
> |
35 |
> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 |
36 |
> |
37 |
> then I version bump it and give it to graphics herd to which I'm a team |
38 |
> member of: |
39 |
> |
40 |
> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.3&r2=1.4 |
41 |
> |
42 |
> at this point everything was still fine. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.4&r2=1.5 |
45 |
> |
46 |
> mattst88, NOT member of graphics team claims owner ship on the package |
47 |
> without consulting me, or anyone from graphics@ i'm aware of. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> then he version bumps it to latest, which was okay'ish except the |
50 |
> Makefile was not reviewed at all in files/ directory and most of the -D |
51 |
> macros were either wrong, or just obsolete. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> at this point we had pngcrush package of non-subtimal quality with |
54 |
> questionable maintainership. notice that graphics is still in the |
55 |
> metadata.xml to which i'm still part of. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> then as member of base-system, I bump libpng and want to push something |
58 |
> new for the distribution. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> pngcrush, the leaf package of graphics@ gets in the way. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> then I sent a message to mattst88 in Freenode what he wants to do with |
63 |
> the situation. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> never got a reply. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> masked the package. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> what does this has to with qa@ team? well, they might be intrested in |
70 |
> the non-subtimal commit which skipped the Makefile review, also known as |
71 |
> "blind commit" -- otherwise it's none of their business. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> so no, you don't get to use this as anykind of weapon against me or |
74 |
> anyone else involved. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> - Samuli |
77 |
> |
78 |
|
79 |
then another non member of graphics team, trying to solve the issue by |
80 |
bundling libpng, bundles also zlib |
81 |
|
82 |
and I had to run after the responsible party, reopen the bug |
83 |
|
84 |
then I had to fix the package to use properly toolchain-funcs for |
85 |
linking, cross-compilation was killed in the process too |
86 |
|
87 |
basically picking up the pieces, again... and again |
88 |
|
89 |
then this baseless thread in ML |
90 |
|
91 |
so you propably can guess you've managed to kill any motivation I had |
92 |
for actually fixing the package (could be subject to change) |
93 |
|
94 |
- Samuli |