| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:47 PM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 2019-09-05 22:16, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> But as per the way the dev manual is written, he arguably *is* |
| 5 |
> >> following policy. |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> Stop taking the line of assuming he's trying to be belligerent. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > He says explicitly that he is against fixing devmanual because he likes |
| 10 |
> > the way he can abuse it right now. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You are the only one adding _abuse_ here. Stop that, thanks. When I |
| 13 |
> replied to your mail I was just asking... nothing more. I don't |
| 14 |
> understand why you are reading so much into it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The devmanual o clearly indicates that an email to gentoo-dev is |
| 17 |
strongly preferred. I don't see any reason why tupone could not have |
| 18 |
done this. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You seem to be trying to take this opportunity to prove some loosely |
| 21 |
related point. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> But yes, I like the current exception for "per-package" eclasses like I |
| 24 |
> am concerned that a review requirement would cause a significant delay: |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Back to my example, imagine we would move pkg_config to new mysql |
| 27 |
> eclass. If we would bump mysql/percona-server/mariadb package and will |
| 28 |
> receive bug reports later because upstream changed something causing |
| 29 |
> pkg_config to fail we would now have to propose a patch, wait 48 |
| 30 |
> hours... i.e. package would be broken for ~72 hours just because of a |
| 31 |
> policy I don't reject in general (yes, I like reviews) but where I think |
| 32 |
> exceptions must be possible. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
This argument is stupid. If you need to push a critical bug fix, then |
| 35 |
do it. Nobody will fault you for it. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
This clearly does not apply to ada.eclass. |
Archives