Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 02:48:26
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists by "William L. Thomson Jr."
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:44 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:51:23 +0100 > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L. >> Thomson Jr.: [...] >> [...] >> [...] >> >> Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating >> the same snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point >> you realize you should maybe remove it from the player. >> >
wltjr, I really do not think you are helping your case. If I were in your position I think I would not back down either, but at some point it is best to let history acknowledge that you are right. I started reading your messages because I noticed Gentoo developers being inconsistent, but not everyone will keep an open enough mind to do that.
> Maybe you should go take more of my Firebird changes and put them in > tree. Since you took over that package I mtainained and then merged in > my changes from Linux UnderGround overlay that came from mine... > > Who do you think made the Firebird 3.x ebuild? I DID!!!! > > > See linux underground reporting issues with mine before adding it to > their repository > > > See the date after they got it from mine :) > > > Then Andreas adding it to tree... HILARIOUS!!!! > > > Also seems it took a few tries why? Not familiar with package? > > > Same package, mgorny 51 comment QA leading to more issues because he > does not use, have a clue about it, or bothered to actually test... Due > to his approach and stance I assumed his changes were correct. HUGE > mistake on my behalf. Why in part mgorny does not like me >
Though this thread might not be the best place, the character of Gentoo developers seems to be relevant to the topic at hand. I agree that there appear to be developers who have editorial control of packages they do not understand. It also seems like they have ample opportunity to confer with people who do understand the packages but choose not to do so. Respectfully, R0b0t1