| 1 |
On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 10:10 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 2 |
> As per my comment in bugzilla [1] I said that the patch should be |
| 3 |
> submitted upstream prior having it in cvs. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yet you decided to completely ignore my statement and just smash in |
| 7 |
> the patch anyway [2]. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Please don't do this ever again. We had shitload of distro patches |
| 11 |
> before and it is hell to strip away later on. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> For your statement of lacking documentation, when I google gerrit |
| 15 |
> libreoffice first two links lead directly to the instance and 3rd to |
| 16 |
> wiki [3], which no suprise is guide how to set it up and submit |
| 17 |
> request, so stop lying. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> As you like to ignore maintainer requests I now expect you to submit |
| 21 |
> it to the gerit, since now you have the guide and you can proceed |
| 22 |
> without an issue right? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Note that I have nothing against other devs submitting fixes to |
| 26 |
> ebuilds maintained by me, but directly ignoring what I said on a bug |
| 27 |
> and doing whatever you see fit does not match that at all. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Tomas |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479604#16 |
| 34 |
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479604#19 |
| 35 |
> [3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Tomáš, considering that libreoffice and libreoffice-bin were both broken |
| 38 |
on ~arch (so ~arch users did not have a compatible office suite to fall |
| 39 |
back on); the bug had 33 people in the CC list; a working patch was |
| 40 |
submitted, with a justification for why it is the correct solution, and |
| 41 |
was verified to work; and your response was (paraphrased) "I will look |
| 42 |
at this later" - I personally think that a small violation of openoffice |
| 43 |
team policies could in this particular case be forgiven. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
In addition, the policy itself is IMHO rather strange. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
If the goal is to ensure that any gentoo patch is visible to upstream |
| 48 |
developers and to libreoffice maintainers from other distros, so that |
| 49 |
they can merge it if they agree with the implementation, surely it would |
| 50 |
make no difference whether the patch got submitted to gerrit by Patrick |
| 51 |
before committing to gx86, or by you a week later? [1] |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid any divergence from upstream, |
| 54 |
presumably you want to first obtain feedback from upstream developers |
| 55 |
and an indication that they will merge the patch - in which case merely |
| 56 |
submitting something to gerrit, without waiting for upstream developer |
| 57 |
response, doesn't make sense. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
[1] on August 11, you had indicated that you would have time to look at |
| 60 |
the bug in ~10 days time. |
Archives