| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> You're missing some context. In October of last year, a QA team member |
| 4 |
> broke dependency resolution on a lot of systems by making the same sort |
| 5 |
> of change that this patch proposes: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/64c42804eb4cf4bc7d1161a2e9222c6a |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Which is very different from what this patch suggests. For example, |
| 10 |
virtual/pam had been package masked at the time, while mgorny's patch |
| 11 |
explicitly says that a virtual should _not_ be masked prior to its |
| 12 |
removal. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Last month, someone brought up that example and named the QA team as |
| 15 |
> partly responsible for the --changed-deps requirement, which goes |
| 16 |
> against the PMS and a council decision: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/dcebabbd6f13aed6622424d439f7becc |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Again, very different case which had nothing to do with removal of a |
| 21 |
virtual. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Shortly thereafter, another QA member opened a pull request that would |
| 24 |
> retroactively make what the first QA member did OK: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual/pull/177 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
See my first paragraph above. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> And now, we are having a third QA team member in charge of approving |
| 31 |
> that change to the devmanual, which will later be cited as "policy." |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Your problem is that you're not a member of the right gang. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Ad-hominem attacks won't help us here. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Ulrich |
Archives