From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B59D41382C5 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:50:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72521E085E; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B19BE081E for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f51.google.com with SMTP id n4so10347722iow.12 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 08:50:44 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530nJLjJarBmfhBo0uic9zIMPd8P2Vs3tm8kR5JhiZdogEelc64A EtMCLxMJIhmGndvtpK0YUIYX2y5DtGgP+gcAE14= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzLeFqqNvF8yZcjBQ0WvVWdPOlrmAFztZHke5aomdZ77MikVOnZ3QOaMxBTH4XWtHgkfbQIY/sSyAuMVbf3ZV8= X-Received: by 2002:a02:a498:: with SMTP id d24mr4196476jam.4.1610124641854; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 08:50:41 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210104013558.20072-1-whissi@gentoo.org> <091a2d35-1437-48d5-031f-6499db0a29c6@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: From: Mike Gilbert Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:50:30 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] acct-user.eclass: don't modify existing user by default To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 3fe1c202-f833-4abd-b0d8-3a190c1a13f9 X-Archives-Hash: cab826f1ea3b5c8432efd63ed815d0c5 On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:29 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2021-01-08 17:03, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > I strongly object to you pushing this patch as-is. There have been > > plenty of non-technical objections, including from the eclass > > maintainer. > > The eclass maintainer has disqualified himself going into a technical > debate with saying > > > So, over my dead commit access. > > in his first posting. > > This is a technical mailing list. Currently, acct-* stuff is breaking > stuff. Nobody has challenged this yet. > > Now I proposed a way how to unbreak stuff. > > Please tell me why we should keep broken stuff for non-technical reason > and cause harm for those who are affected? > > It's not like we cannot address the other stuff later. It's about > getting the fix down to users who are currently affected by this. So why > take hostage when some user(s) ignore the problem for more than a year > and show that they are not interested in collaboration to find a > solution for a technical problem they created despite warnings before > this went live? > > Of course, if you are not affected by this problem it is very easy to > relax and sit back. You have all the time in the world... but when you > are affected by this at large scale it is not that funny anymore. Let me put it this way: if you push this without agreement from the maintainer, QA, or council, you can probably expect a swift revert.