Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:03:51
Message-Id: 54BA337B.8080507@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog by Andrew Savchenko
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA512
3
4 On 01/17/2015 05:09 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
5 > On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:56:01 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote:
6 >> On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
7 >>> Patrick Lauer:
8 >>>> On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
9 >>>>> Patrick Lauer (patrick):
10 >>>>>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
11 >>>>>>
12 >>>>>> Modified: ChangeLog Added:
13 >>>>>> libuv-1.2.1.ebuild Log: Bump
14 >>>>>
15 >>>>> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my
16 >>>>> packages. That includes QA team members.
17 >>>>
18 >>>> Are you always in such a bad mood?
19 >>>
20 >>> Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow
21 >>> improves quality?
22 >>
23 >> No.
24 >>
25 >> Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself.
26 >
27 > This is not a formal bureaucracy, there are some rules to behave
28 > in community and these rules are supposed to be equal for
29 > everyone:
30 > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html
31 >
32 >
33 "Touching other developers ebuilds".
34 >
35 > The fact that developer with QA team member mandate (even if it
36 > was not used in this case) intentionally violates this policy
37 > without even considering this action as something abnormal is very
38 > disturbing.
39 >
40 > Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
41 >
42
43 we are having the same discussion every couple of months. It should
44 have been a clue that such issues are not meant to be solved in the
45 list since we tend to drive everything off-topic in the end. It might
46 be best to report such issues to the designated teams. At least then,
47 if there is no solution, at least you followed the normal procedure
48
49 - --
50 Regards,
51 Markos Chandras
52 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
53 Version: GnuPG v2
54
55 iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJUujN7XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
56 ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRGRDlGMzA4MUI2MzBDODQ4RDBGOEYxMjQx
57 RjEwRUQ0QjgxREVCRjE5AAoJEB8Q7UuB3r8ZWegH/jaswVnHB14ozVO54TWwiThf
58 VWMoFlvE093jYIU/pxWK+4+petQX5ikAONagcnR4zPKIQybtUEnLGTH70A/lFvyU
59 oDjyroJg2Mq2auRD7s1pETEVXWhroh+gDLmR7SBcHXCAcJSyOlu4rhPRDlZPkBJV
60 BaeMMUE+0dcHQYypKGizSt20ov0LT396smGWgFZFxjSJsEs8H6iDuxzJm5JdB+AZ
61 S6AFbIlwsXi4gTWIk2fxbGg2pRUUDwykhoWfu3pv2iIwuOLbGGrct6xRm/vlzLrB
62 HFdnqVqVEzd/LcjW4cYmTkFbup6L0qCfUKu2cxkRI/EJfIIsJLmN9O557r47Gm8=
63 =JH6B
64 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----