| 1 |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:54:44 -0700 |
| 2 |
Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> That's what I think this drama is about; changes being pushed from |
| 5 |
> people who don't work on games, then leaving these game maintainers (and |
| 6 |
> users) in the dark without a "correct" way to achieve what they're |
| 7 |
> after. We can do better than that, and it's solvable in a technical |
| 8 |
> manner, which is why I'm focused on it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'd really appreciate if you did some research before accusing people. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> On the political side... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Do teams hold any authority (or veto power, whatever you want to call |
| 15 |
> it) over their own ebuilds? Is it reasonable to rip functionality out |
| 16 |
> from under a group of developers and tell them to deal with it? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I think teams deserve autonomy over their own ebuilds, [...] |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No, they do not and I will not allow that to happen ever again. And I'm |
| 21 |
pretty sure I'm not the only one here that was unhappy with the way |
| 22 |
Games team pushed everyone around over the years. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you want autonomy, fork Gentoo or use your own repository. The core |
| 25 |
Gentoo repository is community-maintained -- either live with it, or |
| 26 |
leave. We do not need more people causing massive community damage for |
| 27 |
years with nobody being bold enough to stop them. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
People and teams have reasonable right to develop policies and maintain |
| 30 |
their own packages. However, they have no right to assume sole |
| 31 |
ownership of all packages with generic characteristic, and hold it |
| 32 |
for years while preventing anyone from having any saying on anything. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rephrasing Rich's words, how would you feel if I established 'Text |
| 35 |
editors' project and claimed final saying on every single text editor |
| 36 |
in Gentoo? Then I would develop policies I find useful, ignore any |
| 37 |
input, ignore join requests and discourage anyone from contributing. |
| 38 |
Is that the Gentoo you desire? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> and should |
| 41 |
> ideally follow QA guidelines *where reasonable*. Any good QA team should |
| 42 |
> have iron-clad reasons behind their decisions, and answers for |
| 43 |
> 'what-ifs' that exist outside of the ideal perfection that QA tends to |
| 44 |
> operate in. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
The whole point of QA is to provide good quality *everywhere*, and it |
| 47 |
is *unacceptable* to have developers decide if they want to follow |
| 48 |
policies or not. It is reasonable to adjust the policies as necessary, |
| 49 |
or allow grace periods. But there is no point in having policies that |
| 50 |
are fully optional depending on the mood of the developer. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
That said, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. This |
| 53 |
isn't QA's decision. It's a long process started by individual |
| 54 |
developers *interested in helping out with games* years ago, which |
| 55 |
ended up with Council appeal. The source of the policy is the Council, |
| 56 |
not QA. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
QA is merely concerned with the fact that Games team ignores |
| 59 |
the policies established by the Council. This results in two different |
| 60 |
layouts being deployed over the repository which results in increased |
| 61 |
confusion (which you are victim of), and decreased quality. QA offers |
| 62 |
to help in solving that. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
> Removing eclasses without really good reason and without replacements |
| 65 |
> for missing use cases simply shouldn't happen. I wouldn't want that done |
| 66 |
> to me, and I'd definitely not (knowingly) help someone else do it. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Your disagreement with the rationale does not make it bad. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Best regards, |
| 72 |
Michał Górny |
| 73 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives