Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

[Michał Górny]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900
Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:

> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:54:11 AM JST Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:52:09 PM JST Ian Delaney wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200
> > >>
> > >> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > >> > Do you seriously expect this code to work? How about testing? Or
> > >> > reading diffs before committing?
> > >
> > > Absolutely nothing wrong was said here.  Obviously the code was not tested
> > > and Michal pointed that out very plainly.
> >
> > It is actually possible to communicate both plainly and politely at
> > the same time.  This does not require sacrificing any commitment to
> > quality at all.  Really the only downside is having more of an
> > appearance of professionalism.
>
> Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here?  The strong language of
> "seriously" or definitively stating that the individual did not perform the
> necessary QA actions before committing?  Both of which are completely called
> for and appropriate.  No vulgarity, insults, or demeaning words were used.
> How would you have responded professionally?

Since the anti-productivity of this thread is getting impressively high
even for Gentoo standards, I'd like to point out a few things.

It was impolite. It was supposed to be. Not offensive but impolite. It
ain't cool to get responses like this but it ain't cool to break stuff
like this either.

For those who don't have a broader view, it wasn't a single commit but
a followup to a commit adding EAPI=6 support to the eclass -- clearly
untested. I didn't bother complaining about the first one since issues
would clearly pop up if someone actually tried to use the eclass
in EAPI=6. However, the second commit actually introduced a syntax
error that broke all the ebuilds, including stable and caused metadata
generation failure. This is real bad.

Of course, it could have been worse. It looks like no ebuilds with
EAPI=6 'support' were committed following the eclass. Which is a good
sign that some testing eventually occurred. However, is it that much of
an effort to test eclass changes using ebuilds *before* committing it?
It wasn't that hard even in times of CVS (esp. that we're talking about
separate directories), and it is even easier in times of git.

I don't really see the benefit of whole of this discussion. He
committed a bad thing, I shouted at him, end of story. If you want to
take it to comrel, just do it. However, discussing whether it was right
or wrong is really unproductive here.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>