1 |
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 18:13 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
2 |
> On 12/10/19 3:34 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
> > > The problem: There is still no any official documentation about using |
4 |
> > > acct-, and reviewing it was/is pretty much left on the shoulders of one |
5 |
> > > man. It's easy to say on hindsight it was implemented too quickly. |
6 |
> > There is official documentation in devmanual [1]. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> The _detailed_ one was pushed 2 hours before I made my post, if that's |
9 |
> what you're referencing now. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=9613e9e69ae16e6981f90135f92811ded641b52c |
12 |
> |
13 |
> How could I have missed it? But yes, it's exactly and finally what was |
14 |
> needed for a long time. |
15 |
|
16 |
No, I was referring to the short one. But yes, this one is better. |
17 |
|
18 |
> |
19 |
> |
20 |
> > Hence my idea that if we stop requiring mailing list RFC, we can replace |
21 |
> > that with obligatory update to uid-gid.txt. It should work good enough |
22 |
> > for synchronization. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Mmm, yeah sure, I guess it works better for everyone. I can still |
25 |
> imagine someone pushing acct- ebuilds with colliding UIDs, but at least |
26 |
> the CI checks for duplicates right? So committer should receive a mail |
27 |
> to change their numbers ASAP right? |
28 |
|
29 |
Yes. |
30 |
|
31 |
> While at least with mailing list RFC |
32 |
> there's a small chance it can be prevented (like was done twice last |
33 |
> week), but the process is indeed more annoying and more manual. |
34 |
> |
35 |
|
36 |
I wouldn't really call it 'prevented'. Sure, somebody caught it |
37 |
in time, and the other party noticed it in time. However, if we remove |
38 |
the waiting period related to reviews, the risk of collision is much |
39 |
smaller. |
40 |
|
41 |
That said, I need to add some pkgchecks for missync between uid-gid.txt |
42 |
and acct-* packages. |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Best regards, |
46 |
Michał Górny |