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

Attachments

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