| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:37:29PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> That is a really poor argument. Something that's respected for 10+ |
| 3 |
> years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm |
| 4 |
> concerned. Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy |
| 5 |
> (at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere |
| 6 |
> in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad- |
| 7 |
> hoc because it stands in his way. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward |
| 10 |
> even though: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 1) I've objected to the change itself, |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
You have the right to object, as does anyone, but what I take very |
| 15 |
strong issue with is your tone and your way of dealing with the |
| 16 |
situation. An objection with another alternative would have gone a lot |
| 17 |
better with me. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> 2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list, |
| 20 |
> and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even |
| 21 |
> knowing that this is happening, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You rudely attacked me and accused me of something I wasn't |
| 24 |
trying to do. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/d5be93dc7767f2256041eb2cb54b8b38 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Then floppym responded and advised again that this is the place to send |
| 29 |
patches for portage. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/af686e9d2d94a9b940f8f71efdf73b2b |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So, that is why this point wasn't really considered. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> 3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact |
| 36 |
> on users and that involve much effort in reverting that. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Maybe the way around this is to stop building static libs for the |
| 39 |
ebuilds that call gen_usr_ldscript. Once that happens and |
| 40 |
gen_usr_ldscript isn't called in the tree any more, this patch could be |
| 41 |
applied. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch |
| 44 |
> be accepted because only one person objected? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
This is one of our problems as a distro. there isn't a way to |
| 47 |
measure concensus. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I also don't like your tone in your response to Zac merging the patch. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/1abfd0499e514b7d6b70b709e9e3ae18 |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
If I say out here that since I'm a council member I'm above you and zac |
| 54 |
should listen to me and apply the patch is that appropriate? I imagine |
| 55 |
not, so I feel the same way about you bringing your qa membership into |
| 56 |
the discussion. |
| 57 |
In my opinion, all that kind of thing leads to is people becoming angry. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
I'm going to ask you to close https://bugs.gentoo.org/699254. I honestly |
| 60 |
do not feel that this is an appropriate way to deal with this situation. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
William |
Archives