1 |
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:14:39 +0100 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > I shall remind you, the Council-approved process for PMS changes is |
4 |
> > to send them to this list, and if unanimous agreement can't be |
5 |
> > reached, then to escalate the issue to the Council. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > [...] |
8 |
> |
9 |
> > Sorry, but the Council-approved procedure is that patches get sent |
10 |
> > to this list and don't get committed until there aren't objections. |
11 |
> > We don't commit things until everyone's happy with them. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Can you provide a reference for the above please? |
14 |
|
15 |
Meetings on 20080911 and 20080828, which lead to the "Reporting Issues" |
16 |
section of PMS. |
17 |
|
18 |
> > * Since PMS became 'suitable for use', we've never committed works |
19 |
> > in progress to master. We've always used branches for EAPI |
20 |
> > definitions that aren't complete, and we've never committed EAPIs |
21 |
> > that haven't had their wording approved by the Council to master. |
22 |
> > Why are we changing this policy? Where was this policy change |
23 |
> > discussed? |
24 |
> |
25 |
> It's not very helpful to generalise. Let's look at the details, namely |
26 |
> Christian's commits instead: |
27 |
|
28 |
Yes, let's. We agree that the "most recent EAPI" patch was wrong and |
29 |
shouldn't have been committed, so that's one... |
30 |
|
31 |
> - "Change minimum required Bash version from 3.0 to 3.2" |
32 |
> This is a patch prepared by tanderson, and fauli only fixed a |
33 |
> technical problem (footnotes) with LaTeX. I happen to have a log of |
34 |
> the discussion in #-dev. Also from your comments in bug 292646 I |
35 |
> got the impression that you had no objections to the change? |
36 |
|
37 |
I have no objections to the change, although I would have suggested a |
38 |
slightly cleaner wording had I seen the patch before it was applied. |
39 |
|
40 |
> > * Why is disabling kdebuild-1 by default helpful? Why not take the |
41 |
> > reasonable steps already mentioned first, to ensure that the |
42 |
> > change does not have adverse impact? |
43 |
> |
44 |
> - "Disable kdebuild-1 by default" |
45 |
> This just changes a binary flag from true to false, namely it |
46 |
> disables inclusion of kdebuild in the output document. How can this |
47 |
> change have any adverse impact? |
48 |
|
49 |
The impact is that those of us using PMS for developing a package |
50 |
manager have to go back and change it. |
51 |
|
52 |
It's not a typo or formatting fix, so it should have gone to the list |
53 |
for review. It doesn't take long to do a quick git send-email, and it |
54 |
does provide a much better degree of quality control. If nothing |
55 |
else, it's also a basic courtesy to other developers on the project. |
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
Ciaran McCreesh |