[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev
From:       "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-03-31 20:35:12
Message-ID: 5339D180.2010309 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/31/2014 01:50 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 
> On 30/03/14 23:45, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>
>> Your input will be considered here with all the weight it deserves.  My
>> mask was to force this discussion on the list and it has done it's job
>> well.
> 
> So, you admit breaking the policy of gentoo-dev being a optional ML
> for developers[1]
> 
> I really dislike the recent trend of some newer developers trying to force
> everything to be discussed here, even if the involved people have already
> discussed it elsewhere with relavent people

Given that the eudev maintainers already said these changes were made
without discussing with them, clearly you missed some "relevant" people.

Additionally, it was only after the added attention which I brought that
it was noticed that the udev ebuilds had improper pdepends on the
virtual.  If not for the added eyes and attention who knows when that
would have been caught, likely after stabilization.  You are welcome for
the bug fix.
> 
> [1]
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?full=1#book_part1_chap3
> 
> "3.h. Mailing lists
> All developers must be subscribed to the gentoo-core and
> gentoo-dev-announce mailing lists. All developers should be subscribed
> to gentoo-dev and gentoo-project,"
> 
> *should*, not *must*
> 
> Likewise, http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/virtuals/index.html
> 
> "Before adding a new virtual, it should be discussed on |gentoo-dev|."
> 
> *should*, not *must*
> 
> You can't change the policies on your own without rest of the QA team,
> rest of the council, and so forth.

I didn't change the policy, I felt that your change was important enough
that it deserved discussion, especially after bugs were found AND
relevant people were mentioning on irc that they were unhappy about
being left out.
> 
> QA is for enforcing estabilished policies, not making up them as you go
> based on your personal likes and dislikes.
> 
> Futhermore no productive discussion has happened here as you masqueraded
> the use of subslotting you supposedly want to be discussed,
> to be somehow udev specific.

I want the the fact that a single package now has one virtual per lib so
that proper subslot rebuilds can happen to be discussed.  Earlier in
this thread, before you divulged into personal attacks, it was discussed
lightly.  Clearly, no one felt strongly against it, and with this
discussion done, I am happy to be out of your way on this.

> But that's not suprising as you yourself admitted you started all of
> this only because you saw the word 'udev':
> 
> Freenode, #gentoo-qa, at the same time you started this endeavour:
> 
> 18:19 <@Zero_Chaos> granted, the udev changes sparked this line of thought.
> 
I know english isn't everyone's first language, but even completely out
of context this statement doesn't at all mean what you are claiming it
does.  I couldn't possibly care less that this was udev related.  "the
udev changes sparked this line of thought" means that the changes to
udev made me think of how using virtuals in this new way could possibly
be dangerous.  I had previously not noticed the same was suggested (and
shot down) for poplar, so this was a completely new idea which had not
been discussed anywhere I have seen.  Again, now that I brought it to
- -dev (after you refused to do so) and no one else seems to care, I am
out of your way, and I hope it goes as well as you believe it will.

> So, congratulations for making the QA team look like a crapshoot once again.
> 
> 
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48

"In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not
break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting.
The package should be dealt with per QA's request until such a time that
a decision is made by the council."

Per GLEP 48 your actions of reverting the QA mask (the first time) was
entirely inappropriate, and your personal attacks on me are even more
so.  While you flaunt the fact that the rules do not apply to you maybe
you should be less concerned with how QA looks and more concerned with
how your behavior makes you look.

We can continue this pointless back and forth for as long as you like,
but honestly, there will be no winner, only two losers.  Let's just wait
for comrel to resolve my complaint against you with no action and move
on with our lives.  I think we both have better things to do, I know I do.

Thanks,
Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=E4Ui
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]