| 1 |
On 2019-09-05 22:16, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
>> But as per the way the dev manual is written, he arguably *is* |
| 3 |
>> following policy. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Stop taking the line of assuming he's trying to be belligerent. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> He says explicitly that he is against fixing devmanual because he likes |
| 8 |
> the way he can abuse it right now. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You are the only one adding _abuse_ here. Stop that, thanks. When I |
| 11 |
replied to your mail I was just asking... nothing more. I don't |
| 12 |
understand why you are reading so much into it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
But yes, I like the current exception for "per-package" eclasses like I |
| 15 |
am concerned that a review requirement would cause a significant delay: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Back to my example, imagine we would move pkg_config to new mysql |
| 18 |
eclass. If we would bump mysql/percona-server/mariadb package and will |
| 19 |
receive bug reports later because upstream changed something causing |
| 20 |
pkg_config to fail we would now have to propose a patch, wait 48 |
| 21 |
hours... i.e. package would be broken for ~72 hours just because of a |
| 22 |
policy I don't reject in general (yes, I like reviews) but where I think |
| 23 |
exceptions must be possible. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So for my understanding this is not about 'fixing' devmanual. It's about |
| 26 |
*changing* devmanual which I *just* pointed out. But whoever will |
| 27 |
propose changing devmanual should support such a change because he/she |
| 28 |
will probably have to argue for that change. Something I cannot do when |
| 29 |
I like status quo like I do currently or have concerns. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 35 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives