| 1 |
On 08/07/14 17:18, Maxim Koltsov wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 2014-07-08 16:10 GMT+04:00 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o |
| 6 |
> <mailto:rich0@g.o>>: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o |
| 9 |
> <mailto:mgorny@g.o>> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > The games team believes that they're binding. In fact, I recall |
| 12 |
> one of |
| 13 |
> > the team members remarking explicitly that they're going to alter |
| 14 |
> > ebuilds that were committed without their approval. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > In fact, they did remove ebuilds from the tree in the past for this |
| 17 |
> > reason [1]. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> [1]:http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/games-strategy/openxcom/?hideattic=0 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> This was 3 weeks ago, so certainly relevant. Was this removal by |
| 23 |
> mutual agreement (ie the games team and maksbotan ? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Rich |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> No, I was not notified beforehand (or failed to recieve such |
| 29 |
> notification, it does not matter now). This was a proxied commit, I |
| 30 |
> did a usual check of the ebuild and found no problems. I admit that |
| 31 |
> the ebuild was not-so-compliant to games herd rules, though. Still, |
| 32 |
> immediate removal without notification and/or discussion did annoy me. |
| 33 |
> BTW, I fail to see the reason of move to games-engines, but that's |
| 34 |
> another issue. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> -- |
| 37 |
> Regards, Maxim. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Did you get the ebuild reviewed and accepted for committing at |
| 40 |
#gentoo-games as per existing guidelines[1]? |
| 41 |
If you didn't, then you propably managed to annoy them first, and the |
| 42 |
outcome was expected (as in, the missing work |
| 43 |
was done for you, with best intentions) |
| 44 |
I've never had any issues with getting games ebuilds reviewed at |
| 45 |
#gentoo-games and I've committed dozen(s) of |
| 46 |
games to tree. |
| 47 |
I've been on the channel, almost always I'm online, I haven't seen |
| 48 |
people getting ignored there who have proper |
| 49 |
initial work done first (if the ebuild is in a shape you'd have to |
| 50 |
rewrite every second line, you might get ignored, |
| 51 |
and I find that to be reasonable, since we are all volunteers, afterall) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/i-wanna-be-in-the-games-herd.html |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
And some personal thoughts about the initial proposal... |
| 56 |
I don't care about the suggestion 3. in mgorny's proposal at all, but 1. |
| 57 |
and 2. should definately |
| 58 |
stay as is. Since games ebuilds are low maintenance, there is no intrest |
| 59 |
in getting dozens of 'eclass porting |
| 60 |
bugs', which is why inheriting games last prevents future breakage as |
| 61 |
well as ensure the eclasses |
| 62 |
exported phases are respected. |
| 63 |
It seems to me like people aren't making the effort of joining to the |
| 64 |
team and meeting the high quality |
| 65 |
ebuild syntax they've kept up... |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
- Samuli |
Archives