| 1 |
On 08/08/2017 09:49 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> All, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> here is the council agenda for 8/13: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 1. roll call |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 2. decide whether the kernel team can stabilize minor releases on their |
| 10 |
> own once the arch teams have stabilized a major release [1]. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 3. open bugs with council involvement |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 4. open floor |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Thanks, |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> William |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Kernel#Kernel_stabilization |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
I would like the council to consider clarifying the text found in the |
| 23 |
devmanual regarding revision bumps. [1] At present, the text indicates |
| 24 |
that in general we don't want to touch ebuilds that have hit stable. |
| 25 |
However, there are exceptions that are not explicitly laid out, that |
| 26 |
some of us expect other developers to "just understand", despite a |
| 27 |
complete lack of documentation. Developers can't be expected to follow |
| 28 |
policy that isn't clear. "Use your best judgment" isn't good enough when |
| 29 |
a developer gets berated for using it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thus, I would ask the council to answer this one question: When is it |
| 32 |
acceptable to correct an ebuild that has already gotten stable keywords? |
| 33 |
If more intrepid developers would like to make a flow chart or other |
| 34 |
guided aid, that'd be even better. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
This was the cause of a recent kerfuffle and I'd like to prevent it from |
| 37 |
happening again. Thank you for your time. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
~zlg |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
[1]: |
| 42 |
https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/ebuild-revisions/index.html |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 45 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 46 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives