1 |
Hi All, |
2 |
|
3 |
On 2022/07/06 15:50, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
> On Mon, 2022-07-04 at 16:19 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: |
6 |
>> I'd like to propose a new metadata XML element for packages: |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> <non-maintainer-commits-welcome/> |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> Maintainers can signal to other developers (and of course contributors |
11 |
>> in general) that they are happy with others to make changes to the |
12 |
>> ebuilds without prior consultation of the maintainer. |
13 |
> I don't think adding such an element is a good idea. In my opinion, |
14 |
> this will strengthen the assumption that "unless otherwise noted, you |
15 |
> don't dare touch anything" (even though that's not your goal). "Common |
16 |
> sense" should really be good enough for almost everything. |
17 |
|
18 |
I agree, but also note that what I consider to be "common sense" isn't |
19 |
always "your common sense". |
20 |
|
21 |
I also agree that having some way to indicate the preference on the |
22 |
specific package may be a good thing. With various possible levels of |
23 |
sensitivity. |
24 |
|
25 |
For example, net-misc/asterisk and net-libs/pjproject is very sensitive |
26 |
for me. net-misc/dahdi{,-tools} and x11-wm/evilwm less so. In all |
27 |
cases I'd still prefer to be kept in the loop at a minimum. |
28 |
|
29 |
As such, it looks like there is multiple options, and there are |
30 |
suggestions for various tags, this is a sensible way to indicate |
31 |
preference. Eg, also, what kind of fixes don't require communication, |
32 |
eg, I've seen drive-by's on the above packages to fix dependencies based |
33 |
on slots because depended on packages changed their structure, or |
34 |
because LUA became slotted, or adding := etc ... This makes sense to |
35 |
allow these, but if you're going to mess with my ./configure on asterisk |
36 |
or pjproject without consulting with me I'm going to be upset. A simple |
37 |
code fix to fix some compile error (specific to say llvm), probably |
38 |
fine, but I'd still appreciate communication as I'd like to submit that |
39 |
upstream kind of thing as well. |
40 |
|
41 |
If this does go live, then there should be a single tag where the value |
42 |
indicates the level of "sensitivity", or multiple tags of which only one |
43 |
is allowed. Since some of these options may be orthogonal to each |
44 |
other, a single tag with multiple attributes may be more appropriate, I |
45 |
don't know, nor do I personally care that much, so far I've been |
46 |
respected, and the drive-by's that has been made were all either part of |
47 |
global fixes, or in the one or two cases where it was specific, was put |
48 |
into the tree as ~ so were all just fine. In one particular case it was |
49 |
also masked specifically because the change depended on another change |
50 |
to happen simultaneously/close together (lua slotting) - the experience |
51 |
of which was most refreshing. Obviously nothing is set in stone w.r.t. |
52 |
specifics, but if the initial course is at least somewhat in the right |
53 |
direction it's easier to course-correct. |
54 |
|
55 |
I thus have no strong opinion one way or the other, but just wanted to |
56 |
state the above. |
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
Kind Regards, |
60 |
Jaco |