| 1 |
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Michael Jones <gentoo@×××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> From a non-gentoo developer who seriously looked at joining the community |
| 3 |
> over the last few years as a new developer, this entire conversation thread |
| 4 |
> is absurd, and is a wonderful example of why I decided to not bother. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> If you don't want people to edit the field such that it's usable with the |
| 7 |
> official package manager of the distribution, then change the formatting |
| 8 |
> rules for the field! |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If you don't want people editing a field, then change the software such that |
| 11 |
> groups who aren't allowed to edit the field aren't even capable of editing |
| 12 |
> it! |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Either officially document the expected formatting and permissions, or put |
| 15 |
> automated enforcement rules into place. Throwing accusations of wrongdoing |
| 16 |
> around simply because the action in question generates an email is, again, |
| 17 |
> absurd. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
While the situation is indeed absurd, and this email will no doubt |
| 21 |
only fuel your shock, the solution isn't quite that simple. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Validations probably would help, assuming they can be implemented in bugzilla. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Permissions are a touchy situation, because the person who is being |
| 26 |
accused of incorrectly editing the field is also our main bug |
| 27 |
wrangler, who probably does more bug editing than just about anybody |
| 28 |
else. So, removing their permissions also removes one of their main |
| 29 |
areas of contribution to Gentoo. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
One of the issues that keeps coming up is around just how |
| 32 |
decentralized we are, and that has pros and cons. We're pretty |
| 33 |
reluctant to actually enforce just about anything, or sometimes we're |
| 34 |
inconsistent (we let somebody post on the mailing lists, but not |
| 35 |
github, and so on). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Rich |
Archives