Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Petteri Räty:
>
>> Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
>>> 2007]
>>>
>>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
>>> suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
>>> decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is
>>> sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
>>>
>>> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
>>> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following
>>> package versions are considered illegal:
>>>
>
>
>> What is the reason this needed an urgent decision? This was first
>> added to the tree little under three months ago so why not just wait
>> for the next council meeting?
>>
>> *alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234 (04 Feb 2007)
>>
>>   04 Feb 2007; Diego Pettenò <flameeyes@g.o>
>>   +alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234.ebuild:
>>   Add a new snapshot required for kernel 2.6.20.
>>
>
> From my POV:
>
>  * alsa version commited to the tree,
>  * mplayer version has been commited,
>  * alsa version has been removed,
>  * general discussion started on what combinations are allowed
>  * somewhere in between the transcode version was added
>
> My rationale was and is to stop people continueing to add such versions
> w/o prior discussion.
>
> Danny
>
If the decision needed to be made quickly after knowing about it for 3
months, there was clearly the opporunity to use the half-impromptu
meetings as discussed last year (I believe October-ish) which requires a
few days of advance and presence of at least six devs. That should not
have been too difficult to use and allowed a little bit more time,
warnings and discussion rather then a rush decision.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list