1 |
2011/10/3 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o>: |
2 |
> I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several |
3 |
> times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply. |
4 |
> |
5 |
|
6 |
While I'm all for documenting QA policies, ultimately common sense |
7 |
does need to prevail. As I've commented before we can't always let a |
8 |
lack of defined rules keep us from doing the smart thing - or we'll |
9 |
just turn into a distro ruled by lawyers. There has to be a balance. |
10 |
|
11 |
At this point I think this is another tempest in a teapot - the |
12 |
package shouldn't have been removed yet, and we should try to avoid |
13 |
removing packages pre-maturely in the future. That said, having been |
14 |
removed it doesn't make sense to re-add it until it is fixed, and the |
15 |
maintainer has agreed to this (grudgingly, and I can understand that). |
16 |
As much as it is common sense to not put back a now-broken package, |
17 |
it also wasn't common sense to pull it out with only two week's notice |
18 |
in the first place, and as far as I can tell without any effort to |
19 |
contact the maintainer (not that I'd be aware if an attempt was made). |
20 |
It seems likely to me that on a distro the size of Gentoo things like |
21 |
this can happen without any real malicious intent, and we just need to |
22 |
learn from our mistakes... |
23 |
|
24 |
Rich |