| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 19:31 +0100, Stefan Schweizer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Think about it this way, what if we had two competing products in the |
| 4 |
> > tree that do the same thing, with the same file names? We would add a |
| 5 |
> > blocker, no? So what mechanism is there to ensure that there's no |
| 6 |
> > "blocking" issues between an official in-tree project, and these |
| 7 |
> > external overlays that are not in the tree? With the tree, we have a |
| 8 |
> > well-defined policy on this. What policy would we use for the overlays? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> What about if we just skip your "policies" and let the overlays be a |
| 12 |
> free place where people can handle issues how they think it is right |
| 13 |
> for the specific case and not how $super_dev said somewhere. That is |
| 14 |
> what overlays are about, not? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm fine with that, so long as we keep them *far* from *any* Gentoo |
| 17 |
infrastructure. Once it hits *.gentoo.org then it needs to follow some |
| 18 |
basic policy. Otherwise, it is allowing anyone to completely bypass any |
| 19 |
policies we have and allows anyone to cause any kind of breakages that |
| 20 |
they want, with exactly 0 repercussions. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm sorry, but I am not OK with just standing by and watching us give |
| 23 |
complete access to do anything with no accountability. If you are, |
| 24 |
perhaps you really need to rethink your commitment to our users and your |
| 25 |
fellow developers. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 30 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 31 |
Games - Developer |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives