1 |
William, |
2 |
|
3 |
So many things are wrong with this e-mail, I'm not even sure where to |
4 |
start. In my opinion, this mail shouldn't have ever happened. While |
5 |
I believe you had a good intent, this does not justify sending such |
6 |
mails without verifying your claims first. |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
10 |
> it has been brought to my attention that there have been several |
11 |
> backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses lately. |
12 |
|
13 |
The mail starts with an accusation. While it doesn't name it |
14 |
explicitly, I think it's pretty clear that all the recent changes |
15 |
in the eclasses were done by me. As such, it is an accusation that I've |
16 |
done *multiple* 'backward-incompatible changes'. This either implies |
17 |
that I've deliberately broke something, or that I've been careless, |
18 |
incompetent. Either way is bad for me. |
19 |
|
20 |
Now, as we established there was only one backwards-incompatible change, |
21 |
not *several*. Furthermore, FWICS this mail isn't even about that one. |
22 |
It's about changes that were fully backwards compatible and under normal |
23 |
circumstances couldn't have broken any overlays. |
24 |
|
25 |
Don't you think that if someone is going to publicly make such |
26 |
an accusation, the absolutely minimal thing to do would be to verify it? |
27 |
As I'm pretty sure you're aware, I'm available practically every day |
28 |
and it would be sufficient to *ask* to make it clear what the problem |
29 |
is. However, in this case it seems that the accusation was built on top |
30 |
of misunderstood rumors coming from a third party, that were turned into |
31 |
public mailing list discussion without any kind of verification. |
32 |
|
33 |
Of course, you could say that the matter could be corrected in reply to |
34 |
this mail. However, this does not change the fact that it is entirely |
35 |
possible that someone will make an opinion about my actions without |
36 |
verifying your claims or skimming replies to the thread to see that they |
37 |
are entirely unfounded. In other words, this mail is slanderous. |
38 |
|
39 |
> It is true that everything in ::gentoo has been fixed along with the |
40 |
> changes to the eclasses; however, when a change like this goes into a |
41 |
> widely used eclass it breaks overlays with little to no notice; |
42 |
|
43 |
Just to be clear, the only reason that 'overlays' were broken is that |
44 |
the overlay in question was forking one of the python eclasses without |
45 |
forking the others. As a result, the change in *internal* eclass API |
46 |
has caused a missync between eclasses effectively used by the overlay |
47 |
in question. |
48 |
|
49 |
More specifically, the overlay in question was forking python-utils-r1. |
50 |
When new function (_python_export) was introduced in it, the forked |
51 |
eclass did not provide it and other eclasses failed to call it. |
52 |
|
53 |
I'm not aware of any clean way of introducing new internal functions |
54 |
that won't break this case. I don't believe it makes sense to expect |
55 |
developers to cope with that. Moreover, I think it is entirely unfair |
56 |
to complain that I haven't predicted that someone could be doing this. |
57 |
|
58 |
> especially since we do not require developers to be subscribed to this |
59 |
> mailing list. |
60 |
|
61 |
From 20140408 Council meeting summary: |
62 |
|
63 |
| * While it is any developer's choice not to participate on the gentoo- |
64 |
| dev and gentoo-project mailing lists, they nevertheless serve as main |
65 |
| communication channels. If something has been discussed there, |
66 |
| and then action has been taken, the council regards ignorance |
67 |
| of the discussion not as a good foundation for protests against |
68 |
| the actions. [1] |
69 |
|
70 |
The remaining part of the mail is written with the assumption that |
71 |
a breaking change has occurred, so I'm going to skip it. |
72 |
|
73 |
Finally, I don't understand why Council is CC-ed to the mail. Since |
74 |
I haven't been approached with any problem, I don't think there is any |
75 |
reason to request Council intervention here. |
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
[1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20140408-summary.txt |
79 |
|
80 |
-- |
81 |
Best regards, |
82 |
Michał Górny |