1 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as |
2 |
excerpted: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Duncan schrieb: |
5 |
>> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day |
6 |
>> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes stepped on as |
7 |
>> a result of the broken policy. No more nasty threads about (this) |
8 |
>> broken policy and unhappy maintainers as a result! =:^) |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Actually removing a package that doesn't violate any (written) rules |
11 |
> without maintainer consensus could be considered a violation of policy |
12 |
> too. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml Respect |
15 |
> existing maintainers: |
16 |
> Never commit when someone else has clear ownership. Never commit on |
17 |
> things with unclear ownership until you've tried to clear it up. |
18 |
|
19 |
You are correct, but AFAIK, that's one function of tree-cleaners (whether |
20 |
or not the remover is actually on the tree-cleaner team), when packages |
21 |
are broken due to going stale against current, and the bugs reporting the |
22 |
problem remain open for months without (visible) movement (there's some |
23 |
movement here, yes, but was it visible?). |
24 |
|
25 |
That's actually why the 30-day mask is so important and it's so |
26 |
distressing to see people trying to cut it short. Masking has a way of |
27 |
waking people (maintainers and others) up if they actually use the |
28 |
package, and gives a chance for reprieve. |
29 |
|
30 |
But if that 30-day-mask time is cut short, it really does throw a wrench |
31 |
into things due to interactions with "p-space" (physical-space), like |
32 |
vacations, etc, especially considering that Gentoo is volunteers. Coming |
33 |
back from a vacation to see that one's package has been removed and the |
34 |
30-day-mask-time cut short so it all happened while one was on (2-week) |
35 |
vacation is a rude thing indeed to have happen, and maintainers *should* |
36 |
be complaining! I'd be raising holy cow! (... tho with council and on |
37 |
-core as appropriate, the making of the sausage wouldn't /all/ have to be |
38 |
in the open!) |
39 |
|
40 |
So, please, at LEAST honor the 30-day-in-mask bit. And if someone steps |
41 |
up to rescue during that time, let's give them some time to do so. One |
42 |
can /hope/ both sides will be reasonable here and if something's removed |
43 |
in an untimely manner, or even at the end of the 30 days if the timing |
44 |
simply worked out badly and the person couldn't get to it until day 31 or |
45 |
35, it can be returned but kept in a masked state for another month or |
46 |
two, if necessary, without having to further nail down in written policy |
47 |
that end of things, but right now, we're not even getting to that point. |
48 |
Let's at least let the established policy work the way it was intended, |
49 |
giving someone time to step up and do the rescue. |
50 |
|
51 |
Meanwhile, once the package is masked, don't let it hold up the normal |
52 |
update process with other packages. (Tho ideally there's cooperation in |
53 |
this aspect as well, but again, we're not even getting to the point where |
54 |
that's an issue. Right now, existing written policies are being violated |
55 |
for questionable-at-best reasons; obviously if something's discovered to |
56 |
have been back-doored or the like, that would be rather beyond |
57 |
"questionable-at-best"! But of course that'd be security not "just" |
58 |
tree-cleaners/qa.) |
59 |
|
60 |
-- |
61 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
62 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
63 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |