Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some ideas on how to reduce territoriality
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:12:50
Message-Id: f97a1u$46u$1@sea.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some ideas on how to reduce territoriality by Ciaran McCreesh
1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2
3 > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700
4 > Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:
5 >> - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting
6 >> KEYWORD changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional
7 >> dependencies for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but
8 >> really are required to make the necessary changes to add support for
9 >> your architecture.
10 >
11 > arch-specific patches are almost always wrong. The last thing people
12 > need is to come along and find some arch developer has applied a bad
13 > arch-specific patch without asking first...
14 >
15 Thing is, in such a case, the maintainer isn't going to be using the arch
16 (or s/he'd have applied it already.) If there's a problem with the patch
17 _on that arch_ (where else is it going to show up) the arch team (or the
18 dev who applied it) is responsible for any bugs.
19
20 If there's a problem with getting the bugs assigned to that team, it's a
21 different issue (which needs to be resolved ofc.)
22
23 You seem to be saying that arch teams are deliberately going to apply "bad
24 patches" which makes no sense. If they do it's a QA and, ultimately, a
25 devrel issue aiui.
26
27
28 --
29 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list