1 |
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:29 AM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
2 |
<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Alec Warner schrieb: |
5 |
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:54 AM Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o |
6 |
> > <mailto:dilfridge@g.o>> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Someone needs to grow up here. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Meh, to me (someone who can't commit to ::gentoo) I have a few concerns here. |
12 |
> > First, I don't see a lot of QA reverts on the gentoo-dev list. Is it common |
13 |
> > practice to post reverts publicly? Second, I'm not aware that we would revert |
14 |
> > for things like this. Most of the items you mention look fairly minor (maybe |
15 |
> > the python comment looks impactful?) Why can't we fix these items in a future |
16 |
> > commit, rather than revert? What did Patrice's commit break? |
17 |
> |
18 |
> If the issues are so serious that we have to prevent any breakage/regressions |
19 |
> from reaching users, I guess an alternative response would have been to |
20 |
> p.mask the offending new ebuild. Unless the commit caused some tree-wide |
21 |
> breakage which I can't see here however. |
22 |
|
23 |
Don't really want to comment on where the line should have been drawn |
24 |
on this particular case, but the idea of reverting commits doesn't |
25 |
seem particularly abhorrent, and certainly commits that don't create a |
26 |
new ebuild couldn't be addressed with masking unless we want to impact |
27 |
end users. |
28 |
|
29 |
It seems like the drama here is mostly about how this ended up on the |
30 |
lists vs just being a discussion between QA and the committer/etc. |
31 |
Reading between the lines I'm not sure if it was ever intended to be |
32 |
on the list at least initially. |
33 |
|
34 |
If this was intended for public consumption it probably wouldn't hurt |
35 |
to note why (hey, we're singling out this commit because it has this |
36 |
error we've been seeing a lot of lately and you can see how this sort |
37 |
of thing could sneak in...). Otherwise it just seems like it causes |
38 |
drama without actually achieving the desired impact. |
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Rich |