1 |
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:10:13PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
3 |
> > > - If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please cc |
4 |
> > > yourself on the bug. |
5 |
> > > - Please close the bugs, even the dupes (and apply previous point to the dupes |
6 |
> > > too). |
7 |
> > > - That way you'll be able to quickly fix (apparently, I didn't check) obvious |
8 |
> > > mistakes [1]. |
9 |
> > > - You'll have to do a rev. bump for *FLAGS respect, please also check if you |
10 |
> > > can avoid it by doing a version bump instead. |
11 |
> > Well not always. If something is on ~testing then I don't think I should |
12 |
> > "spam" the tree with revbumps. Stable users are my first priority so |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Stable may be more critical, but we support ~testing as well. How do you |
15 |
> expect your changes to be tested before landing on stable if you don't |
16 |
> revbump the packages, allowing them to reach our users? |
17 |
I expect arch testers to do a pretty good testing before they mark them |
18 |
stable. Seems like I am the only one who fixes such issues without revbump. |
19 |
Strange, cvs log must be lying... |
20 |
|
21 |
Now lets see |
22 |
|
23 |
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/ebuild-revisions/index.html |
24 |
|
25 |
"Ebuilds should have their -rX incremented whenever a change is made which will |
26 |
make a **substantial** difference to what gets installed by the package — by |
27 |
substantial, we generally mean "something for which many users would want to |
28 |
upgrade". This is usually for bugfixes." |
29 |
|
30 |
Seems like it is up to maintainer's discretion to decide what it is |
31 |
substantial change and what it is not. Many users wont be directly affected from my changes. It is not like not |
32 |
respect CXX, CXXFLAGS after all. |
33 |
|
34 |
"Simple compile fixes do not warrant a revision bump; this is because they do |
35 |
not affect the installed package for users who already managed to compile it. |
36 |
Small documentation fixes are also usually not grounds for a new revision." |
37 |
|
38 |
So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect the |
39 |
LDFLAGS. Why, since until recently, nobody gave a crap about this kind of QA |
40 |
issues? |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
Please provide a patch for devmanual to make it more clear. If it is |
44 |
already clear maybe I am that stupid after all. |
45 |
|
46 |
In any case, I will keep doing what I do because you didn't convince me so far |
47 |
that my changes need a revbump. If arch testers fail to do proper testing |
48 |
thats really *REALLY* not my fault. Testing is testing and I can't do a |
49 |
revbump for every little piece of shit I fix everytime. |
50 |
|
51 |
> |
52 |
> Please, don't skip revbumps to avoid "tree spamming", thats why we have |
53 |
> revbumps in the first place ;) |
54 |
> |
55 |
> > unless something is on stable branch, I fix it as it is. I don't want to |
56 |
> > version bump anything because I don't want to mess with anyones |
57 |
> > packages. I only do QA fixing. If you have problem touching your |
58 |
> > packages just say it |
59 |
> > > |
60 |
> > > A. |
61 |
> > > |
62 |
> > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332523 |
63 |
> > |
64 |
> > -- |
65 |
> > Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
66 |
> > Gentoo Linux Developer |
67 |
> > Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
68 |
> |
69 |
> -- |
70 |
> Alex Alexander -=- wired |
71 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer -=- Council / Qt / KDE / more |
72 |
> www.linuxized.com |
73 |
|
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
78 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
79 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
80 |
Key ID: 441AC410 |
81 |
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 |