2011/4/16 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>: > Ok enough. > > We _ARE_ headed for a fork between rpm5.org <-> Mandriva if these check-ins > continue. > > I've asked for discussion first. Not happening. > > I've asked for a feature list. Not seen. > > I've pointed out that many of these changes are ancient hysteria being > recycled as Newer! Better! Bestest! > > There is noone asking for these changes. Show me. These are already in use on Mandriva and part of the helpers migrated from rpm-mandriva-setup.
> > There are no test cases. I will make that policy MANDATORY if necessary. > > There is nothing but a 1-line description, essentially > Add new stuff. > No examples, no writeup, no usage case, nothing. ? Both commit messages, entry in CHANGES and the code itself should generally have at least the bare minimum to provide some pointers for it.. > > Its happening on the "production" branch (in this case) creating > divergence that I have to muck about with later, often breaking > code because I haven't any clue what is what. I've placed it under mandriva #ifdef, so it shouldn't break things for anyone else on the production branch.. > > None of this code is maintainable or useful imho until some of the above is > corrected. If I'm gonna be able to migrate to the internal dependency generator, I must add these to avoid ~regressions. If a discussion and test cases is required provided first, I won't be able to have time to switching to the internal dependency before after next mandriva release.. Or I can go back to maintaining patches locally in cooker svn..? -- Regards, Per Øyvind ______________________________________________________________________ RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
