Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o, gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:19:37
Message-Id: 20091211182739.28626e85@snowcone
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:14:39 +0100
2 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
3 > > I shall remind you, the Council-approved process for PMS changes is
4 > > to send them to this list, and if unanimous agreement can't be
5 > > reached, then to escalate the issue to the Council.
6 >
7 > > [...]
8 >
9 > > Sorry, but the Council-approved procedure is that patches get sent
10 > > to this list and don't get committed until there aren't objections.
11 > > We don't commit things until everyone's happy with them.
12 >
13 > Can you provide a reference for the above please?
14
15 Meetings on 20080911 and 20080828, which lead to the "Reporting Issues"
16 section of PMS.
17
18 > > * Since PMS became 'suitable for use', we've never committed works
19 > > in progress to master. We've always used branches for EAPI
20 > > definitions that aren't complete, and we've never committed EAPIs
21 > > that haven't had their wording approved by the Council to master.
22 > > Why are we changing this policy? Where was this policy change
23 > > discussed?
24 >
25 > It's not very helpful to generalise. Let's look at the details, namely
26 > Christian's commits instead:
27
28 Yes, let's. We agree that the "most recent EAPI" patch was wrong and
29 shouldn't have been committed, so that's one...
30
31 > - "Change minimum required Bash version from 3.0 to 3.2"
32 > This is a patch prepared by tanderson, and fauli only fixed a
33 > technical problem (footnotes) with LaTeX. I happen to have a log of
34 > the discussion in #-dev. Also from your comments in bug 292646 I
35 > got the impression that you had no objections to the change?
36
37 I have no objections to the change, although I would have suggested a
38 slightly cleaner wording had I seen the patch before it was applied.
39
40 > > * Why is disabling kdebuild-1 by default helpful? Why not take the
41 > > reasonable steps already mentioned first, to ensure that the
42 > > change does not have adverse impact?
43 >
44 > - "Disable kdebuild-1 by default"
45 > This just changes a binary flag from true to false, namely it
46 > disables inclusion of kdebuild in the output document. How can this
47 > change have any adverse impact?
48
49 The impact is that those of us using PMS for developing a package
50 manager have to go back and change it.
51
52 It's not a typo or formatting fix, so it should have gone to the list
53 for review. It doesn't take long to do a quick git send-email, and it
54 does provide a much better degree of quality control. If nothing
55 else, it's also a basic courtesy to other developers on the project.
56
57 --
58 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>