Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ben de Groot]

On 23 April 2013 01:13, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:43:22 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On 21 April 2013 22:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <
> chithanh@g.o>wrote:
> >
> > > Denis Dupeyron schrieb:
> > > > I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not
> > > > propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being
> > > > actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch
> > > > it without talking to that person or team first.
> > >
> > > I fail to see any wrong behavior here. A bug report was created and a
> > > review
> > > of the changes was requested. The first reaction came after several
> weeks
> > > after the bug filing, and the first objection almost two months after
> the
> > > change was applied.
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455074
> > >
> >
> > You are missing an important part of the story.
> > See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455070 where we discuss
> > the same issue for freetype. (Yes I should have been explicit for
> fontconfig
> > too, my bad.)
> >
> > I initially reacted within hours, saying that his proposal was in my eyes
> > not ready yet. I assumed I was clear enough in my refusal, but
> > apparently Michał didn't understand it that way. He then contacted
> > the herd a few weeks later, when I was on holiday, and got Luca's
> permission
> > to commit, not taking into account he hadn't touched those packages in
> > many years.
>
> Just to be clear -- I misunderstood you indeed.


I know, and it's water under the bridge. We're people and we make mistakes
sometimes. Let's move on.


> I thought you mean that
> you would agree if the idea is discussed and the discussion results in
> a general agreement on proceeding with the solution.


That and ample testing. I think it has been going all a bit too quick, with
the eclass(es) in flux, and so on. I'm still not convinced it's mature
enough
at this point, which is why I believe this should still be masked.

As to the discussion, I see only a few people speaking up, but obviously
you cannot be blamed for the silent majority.

But it's starting to look more and more like I'm the only one objecting
at this point. So maybe I should stop being cautious (or even cranky)
and let you guys go ahead and do your work. I do need someone to
co-maintain freetype and fontconfig then, as I am personally still not
happy with these changes and the maintenance burden they create.


> > After I found out, I was a bit pissed off about it, but I was too busy
> with
> > work to deal with it (and thought it wise to cool down a bit before
> taking
> > action). I then saw bug reports about the freetype multilib ebuild
> revision
> > flooding in, and was satisfied after it got masked.
>
> Those bugs weren't relevant to the final version of the ebuild which
> you have masked. The only actual bug left open was the one which I
> forgot to close after fixing it instantly after it was opened.
>
> So please don't say that I don't take responsibility for my changes.


I'm not saying that at all. You respond quickly. I can only commend you
on that.

But I do have doubts about long term maintainance. I know you are
more than willing to do your part, but it's simply beyond any one
person to (co-)maintain half the tree.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin