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 73D381382C5 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EE6EE0844; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:16:46 +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 590F7E081A for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] acct-user.eclass: don't modify existing user by default From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 18:16:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20210104013558.20072-1-whissi@gentoo.org> <091a2d35-1437-48d5-031f-6499db0a29c6@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.2 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: d5ec3668-282c-4332-bc59-4b19c65f2a3e X-Archives-Hash: 0aa4b6e025fff7db52ac3bb9d5a7df6e On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 17:29 +0100, 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. Please remind me, who granted your the power to disqualify maintainers? > This is a technical mailing list. Currently, acct-* stuff is breaking > stuff. Nobody has challenged this yet. No, it is not. It is behaving as described. What really happens is that you rejected the design, deliberately broke your system and now are trying to push your design over false arguments. > 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? Yes, surely me abandoning other work to provide a patch on the same day proves that I am 'not interested in collaboration to find a solution'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny