Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: kdebuild-1 conditionals
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:07:01
Message-Id: 20091211212722.0478013a@snowmobile
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Re: kdebuild-1 conditionals by Brian Harring
1 On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:08:02 -0800
2 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
3 > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:57:22PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
4 > > > Also, unless I'm on crack, the person leading PMS is fauli- I'd
5 > > > expect he's the one who can pull the veto trick, not you.
6 > >
7 > > If *anyone* has any objections to patches, we resolve those
8 > > objections before proceeding.
9 >
10 > Historically that has been a "do as I say, not as I do.". Via
11 > ability to directly commit to pms, bits have gone in that would've
12 > been argued- or, bits have been left out that would've made the
13 > change in general a no go.
15 Not since the Council agreed on PMS as a draft standard for EAPI 0 they
16 haven't.
18 > Unfortunately because of the way the rules are ran, once it's in all
19 > it takes is one person stonewalling to keep from getting it fixed-
20 > catch 22, if they can push it in then they get it via pulling a veto.
22 Please point to any patch on the subject that has been sent to this list
23 that has been rejected, by veto or any other means.
25 > Further, frankly it provides a way for you to stonewall fixing known
26 > flaws- the entire life of PMS you've been trying to force extended ~
27 > atom support and no one can get that bit removed because *you*
28 > stonewall it. You wrote the original bits, now we can't fix the
29 > things you forced in via this idiotic veto rule.
31 Again, point to patches please.
33 > I digress. Take it to the council as said, it would be interesting
34 > to see the slap down on this one, and frankly PMS does need to be far
35 > more democratic. Pointing at academic issues (1^23 chance is
36 > academic, although yes, sorting it out for the academic case where
37 > the FS supports NS is useful) as a claim that the majority cannot
38 > overrule is plain political idiocy.
40 The problem with writing code that sometimes doesn't work is that it
41 sometimes doesn't work. And I've no idea what "1^23" is, but it doesn't
42 look like the actual odds of it going wrong, which are around one in
43 ten million per file, or one in a thousand on any given system, or a
44 hundred affected systems once people start using newer filesystems.
45 Hardly academic.
47 If a democracy votes that it's ok to construct bridges out of materials
48 that are known to cause random collapse one time in a thousand, would
49 you consider those bridges to be well designed?
51 > Either that or we just back off and let you get your way per the
52 > norm. This I consider an untenuable solution if PMS is to have any
53 > relevance long term.
55 You still haven't explained what's wrong with doing a carefully phased
56 withdrawal, rather than running around with an axe lopping bits out
57 just because you can.
59 --
60 Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature