| 1 |
On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 15:14 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2019-09-05 06:02, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > In my case I am working on a new mysql eclass to outsource pkg_config |
| 4 |
> > > function which is shared at least between dev-db/mysql and |
| 5 |
> > > dev-db/percona-server (and maybe dev-db/mariadb). |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > For this new eclass I would say it's a "per-package" eclass and would |
| 8 |
> > > probably have skipped mailing list review, too. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Everyone can skip as many paragraphs as they want, and then apply what's |
| 11 |
> > said later to something said way earlier. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Could you please stop adding any bad interpretation? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That was a serious question. For you, it's pretty clear. I am showing |
| 16 |
> you, that for me, it isn't pretty clear. When you believe I skipped |
| 17 |
> important lines in my quote please outline what I have missed and I will |
| 18 |
> take the blame. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > > If you want to make it clear, change "should" to "must" and maybe |
| 22 |
> > > clarify per-package exception and limit to update case if you believe |
| 23 |
> > > that really *all* *new* eclasses must be send to mailing list. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > Submit a part. This is a community effort. Nitpicking and complaining |
| 26 |
> > doesn't make things better. Fixing them does. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Sure, but at the moment *you* are the one who are saying it's a MUST. I |
| 29 |
> don't understand it that way and I am fine with my understanding that |
| 30 |
> per-package eclasses *should* but *must not* get reviewed through |
| 31 |
> mailing list. In other words I am asking you to show us where it's |
| 32 |
> written that *all* *new* eclasses *must* get reviewed through mailing |
| 33 |
> list. I cannot find something like that in current devmanual (the link |
| 34 |
> you showed). |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Maybe I am still missing something after reading |
| 37 |
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/ 3 times... |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> In case I am not missing anything I suggested to improve devmanual in |
| 40 |
> case you believe this should be a hard requirement. Because at the |
| 41 |
> moment I don't believe it should be a hard requirement, *I* will not |
| 42 |
> propose any changes. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
So to summarize, instead of working together in order to follow a well- |
| 46 |
established policy, you prefer to do whatever you find convenient |
| 47 |
at the moment, as long as you justify it by finding some document whose |
| 48 |
wording does not perfectly prevent you from bending the policy? Yes, |
| 49 |
that sounds like a very good attitude for a Council member. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Best regards, |
| 53 |
Michał Górny |
Archives