Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

[Tom Wijsman]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 07:42:21 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:

> On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell  wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
> >>>>>>> progress in gentoo.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You certainly are not an authority when it comes to that
> >>>>> question...
> >>>>
> >>>> Well no
> >>
> >>> exactly
> >>
> >> Stop it. Now.
> >>
> >> gentoo-dev is a list for technical topics, so please take your
> >> personal quarrels elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Ulrich
> >>
> >
> > Last warning for both hasufell and Ciaran. Keep the discussion on
> > acceptable technical and polite levels or go away
> >
>
> I'm quite surprised that you attack hasufell now for his valid opinion
> that PMS is not well maintained and does not reflect reality
> adequately.

Credit is where credit is due, this warning is not an attack at that;
it is more like a warning for most of the statements made after that,
and possible one of the other sub threads as well as per "last".

> (not well maintained: simple patches take months to get applied,

Do you have an example?

Patches need to be written, discussed and decided on; before applying.

> and even then often need council interference to be applied.

The PMS has its implications on our distribution; that it needs Council
decisions is more of a logical consequence, and not the exception.

Last Council meeting I did not see any PMS matters; so, it rather seems
that nothing was sent for consideration, thus nothing gets applied...

> Does not reflect reality:

See my previous mail in this sub thread, it does not need to.

> Multiple cases like mandating bash 3.2 that
> we don't even have in tree anymore,

There is =app-shells/bash-3.2_p51 in the Portage tree.

> so no compliance testing possible.

That's for a different reason; a particular blocking bug keeps this up,
as you can see in bug #479574 [1].

 [1]: app-shells/bash: please consider slotting 3.2 for ebuild testing
      https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479574

No idea what the PMS has to do with this, could you explain?

> Not documenting package.mask as a
> directory for EAPI0 even when that feature existed in portage before
> the initial release of PMS. Etc. etc.)

The existence of a feature does not imply that it needs to be specified
in something like the PMS; that EAPI was written many years ago, so, it
is more likely the result of a slow / unclear start than bad reflection.

=== Non-technical and non-Gentoo part follows, feel free to ignore. ===

> And I really do not appreciate this weirdness of "LAST
> WARNING!!11" ... it doesn't work on 6-year-olds, so don't expect it
> to work on a group of strongly individualist nerds.

That is a comparison of apples and eggs; in this case of our people, a
limited set of options is presented. For kids, providing options works
really well; you should try it. Why does it work? It gives them control.

So, back to our people; they have the choice to get back on topic, stay
away or end up losing their access that they had been rewarded.

This of course assumes you have ignored them to the point that it is
enough; at which point, you'll have to present them their options.

> Makes me want to tell you "Last warning! Don't warn people again, OR
> ELSE!" just to see what happens.

Now I wonder which options you will present to him, and how those
options will result in reward or a loss of reward; as I don't see any
such options, not much will happen for him regardless of what he does
in response to your statement. No control due to no change in reward.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D