Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Cc: Sam James <sam@g.o>, Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items for upcoming council meeting (2022-05-08)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 02:07:41
Message-Id: CAJ0EP40C=4=kcCa6bo_w4_8rqQ_TMV0a3koNDbRPyJKWfOFw9A@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items for upcoming council meeting (2022-05-08) by Rich Freeman
1 On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:08 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:27 PM Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@g.o> wrote:
4 > >
5 > > This change will force all users to change their flow, or set the
6 > > configuration part - meaning it is a semi-breaking change.
7 >
8 > Since commits to the main repo without the signoff are going to get
9 > rejected anyway, if we decide to go ahead with this would it make
10 > sense to just have it abort by default if the config item or command
11 > line parameter is missing?
12 >
13 > If a user really wants to commit without a signoff they can just set
14 > --signoff=false, or the equivalent in the config file.
15 >
16 > Basically make it a non-optional parameter.
17 >
18 > If this weren't a gentoo-specific tool I'd see making the behavior
19 > more generic, but it seems like if the default is going to be to help
20 > the user to shoot themself in the foot, it should just output some
21 > kind of explanation of the need for the parameter and what it means if
22 > it is not provided.
23
24 I think aborting is a bit extreme.
25
26 Maybe a warning for a few releases, similar to how git has handled
27 behavior changes.

Replies