Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

[Tom Wijsman]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:05:19 +0000 (UTC)
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> >> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
> >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
> >>
> >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
> >
> > Vim is not fully POSIX compliant; you may find it claim "mostly" in
> > its documentation, but that's where it stays at and thus doesn't
> > suffice...
> >
> > While we're at it, we must make everyone use a POSIX IDE with a
> > ribbon!
> >
> > Jokes aside, this sub discussion is pointless; if we want results, a
> > moderated mailing list as suggested in a reply won't cut it!
>
> It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit. Ciaran wasn't
> trolling, he was making a point. I'm sure everyone around here
> understood his point. There were no attacks and no "foul language",
> so can we move forward?

Constructiveness does not rely on just making points, as replacing nano
with Vim is out of the context of adding bc back to stage3. Editors are
a world apart from a build tool, even more so from being POSIX. In
order to move forward beyond this point, that needs to be recognized.

Does that make him attacking / foulish / trollish / unchilling? No;
actually, it is helpful / smart / fluffy / chilling towards consensus
as both the opposite and sarcastic interpretations help form that.

> > What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to
> > add bc back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote
> > regarding adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as
> > well.
>
> No, there isn't a need for a Council vote here.

Not in the way of having the Council actually vote, but by waking up
everyone from these endless side points sub discussions by escalation.

> This is something up
> to Releng (in respect to what is in the stages) and to everyone in
> respect to what is part of the system set.
> Further, to me, this is a case where if anyone tries to side-step
> Releng and go over it with a Council decision, than the council
> members should be ready to start doing Releng work.
>
> I've stopped following this mailing list regularly quite sometime
> ago. To see this thread is still going on and no one bothered to cc
> releng, to me shows a lack of respect for the people actually doing
> releases around here, as well as a real lack of interest in getting
> this done as you can discuss this all you want, but in the end, it's
> releng that works on this.

If people desire a change, it'll be discussed for an eternity; until ...