Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI component naming collision

[Stuart Herbert]

On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 20:00 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then you must talk to upstream and get them to change their ways.

Already covered in the (growing) discussion in bug #123926.  UPSTREAM
have previously been contacted over the issue, and have not changed
their release policy.

> We don't *want* to remove the package from the tree. We want to get
> the breakage fixed.

In practical, does-it-affect-the-user terms, it's not broken.  It's also
covered by our NX Guide in the desktop docs section, just to be sure.

> There's no policy document in existence that explicitly says that you
> (by name) can add stuff to the tree either. Most of our policy is
> undocumented, because it's impossible to cover every situation. The
> number one rule, however, is to be sensible and not commit things that
> cause breakages.

I'm a little rusty at this - it's six years since I ran the DDS4 test
team for HP - but isn't one of the internationally recognised
requirements of every recognised QA standard that exists that a QA
policy should be documented?

On a practical note, I don't understand how you expect developers to
follow an undocumented QA process.  Sorry, I just don't get that one.

> Again, we don't *want* to remove it. On the other hand, if you refuse
> to work with us to get the problem fixed, we're going to have to do
> something about it ourselves.

I've refused to do two things, and only two things:

a) rename the files, and mirror them ourselves, because legally I don't
believe we can do this for these packages, and
b) to remove the packages from the tree

Everything else is up for discussion.  I think it's unreasonable to say
that I'm refusing to work with you.

Bearing in mind the discussion that's happened in the bug, on IRC with
Halcy0n, and in this mailing list, please understand this: I don't
believe that the QA team has provided evidence that it has the authority
to do anything to these packages over this SRC_URI issue.  If the team
chooses to take unilateral action, I'll be left with no choice but to
file a formal complaint against the team as a consequence.

I'm happy (and have suggested earlier) that this issue needs to go to
the council to be resolved.

> As I recall, pretty much nothing about digests at all is in any
> official policy document. Nor is nearly anything else on any
> development topic. However, that it is not explicitly forbidden does
> not mean that it should be done.
>
> Where in policy does it say that you shouldn't commit pictures of
> teletubbies in SVG format in the tree?

The issue at hand is that the QA team is, in this case, repeatedly
asking for something it doesn't have the authority to insist on.  I also
think you're being unreasonable in this specific case.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@g.o
Gentoo Developer                                  http://www.gentoo.org/
                                          http://blog.stuartherbert.com/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--