1 |
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/09/2014 01:22 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
3 |
>> And some personal thoughts about the initial proposal... |
4 |
>> I don't care about the suggestion 3. in mgorny's proposal at all, but 1. |
5 |
>> and 2. should definately |
6 |
>> stay as is. |
7 |
> What authority does the game team have over anything? Did it get special |
8 |
> blessing from the Council? Isn't it just another regular project as per |
9 |
> GLEP 39? |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
While I tend to agree with the sentiment, and it may not be productive |
13 |
to try to turn this into a bunch of rules, it is beneficial to have |
14 |
guidelines/etc managed by projects in general, and to have maintainers |
15 |
generally try to follow them. |
16 |
|
17 |
So, if you're using the multilib eclass in your ebuild then it only |
18 |
make sense to coordinate with the project that manages that. It isn't |
19 |
so much about following rules as it just makes sense to not have |
20 |
everything randomly break anytime somebody changes something. |
21 |
|
22 |
If the games team is active and wants to help steer contributions that |
23 |
isn't a bad thing. I'd suggest a bit more finesse though - they can |
24 |
at least talk to maintainers before doing a package move. |
25 |
|
26 |
I've managed exactly one game package and I can't say that working |
27 |
with the games herd has ever been a problem. For the most part |
28 |
they're fairly hands-off as long as you follow their rules. |
29 |
|
30 |
That said, if anybody wants to be able to tell others what they can |
31 |
and can't do then they should be prepared to have their rules |
32 |
bikesheded in public from time to time. That's just the price of |
33 |
fame, and if all games are supposed to follow the game project rules, |
34 |
then those rules are perfectly good cannon fodder for -dev, whether it |
35 |
gets escalated to council or not. :) |
36 |
|
37 |
Rich |