-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 26-06-2011 17:55, Peter Stuge wrote: > William Hubbs wrote: >> Yes, it was added a couple of days ago, without giving a reasonable >> amount of time for discussion. > > You know just as well as I do that this thread is the most discussion > that this mailing list has seen in a very long time. Sebastian wants > to make some progress. I see no problem.
Yes and I'm happy to see people interested on catalyst. However, given the recent discussions I feel I should point out that catalyst is Release Engineering's team release tool and not a "toy" for people to tinker with. I appreciate the interest all of you are showing for the tool and I appreciate any improvements, but I and other releng team members need this tool to work for us to have releases. >> For a significant change like this, > > "significant" is so subjective though. It did made a significant change to the dependencies of catalyst. I haven't checked it closely yet, but I also wonder if all the additional deps are worth avoiding a single man page in the tarball. >> I think we should give 24-48 hours and make the patch visible >> somewhere > > It is clear that you are displeased because you think you did not > have a chance to oppose the change before it was made. I can > understand, but in reality I doubt the one opposing voice would > have made a difference. William is not the only one to have concerns about this change. Also, prior to the subscription by agaffney, armin76 and myself, this list probably had little if any releng members. As this is a releng tool, not having us around to "object" doesn't make it ok to commit changes without ensuring releng is ok with the changes. >> Based on this as well as my previous objections I would like to see >> this change reverted. > > I disagree and hope that most others do as well, so that development > will continue instead of being stuck on senseless arguing with you. I'm sorry but this is not about arguing with William. This is about making sure that the people interested as well as the direct consumers of the tool are ok with any proposed changes. I'm sure no one wants to risk causing a split that could lead to either releng assuming control of catalyst again or worse causing a fork in the code. > What about my suggestion to fix the actual problem, asciidoc > dependencies, did you bother looking into that yet? (I haven't > because I don't feel at all strongly.) > > Thanks! > > > //Peter - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOB8AxAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPyeAP/iQ26OaLYHOaE8SirGp1nsiP ET6RKcO60a25SeiicIgM6jcJ0HX6u71G6DEPR9jI4dk6yxQoNCxsfvLimIURqhHU GAwdowhaa0dRQtaQejLYFo30t2TrzhqPsFu+oILskeLifOqoQDWvHG2IeBvQ04Vl dB8rA6GKu4EKbY/i0XreFO8rjOgW2rjTY8PB+hDagGUK0mqqle1VlHJmW/w5pNwD NhyyGIwHY7M6sf+HI6QgGr6nzUYeAxMbBtozu/kTNtqp09fkjtis35cKMPYExyCF 8w9mTgLsqa151nIcDP7+IhWkJKPnaxS7EHg2mApnZH4JRNEHd39CJLPVk2Gg3FQg 2lp5K4N4JjePC1Ejd5ciL5Po/R7wAsFT2rLwk35xSTM/nhv6lAOjc/Qq2xEA5IUg 5uU6crwthJOMj07kqiT+YuT6mOK3NnNObkpLnyx7aAQAjTe8LfUWEtVSSgJ40wM2 xTLAE1uDVK7lI/PD4pL+DtFjej263RSRha5PRmYDg24yMTZoV2ZExc4vzbqfrysp TjNc7kdWtZrzr4a4snGkzpKhD2gI9ivjorfsQr32QXaiSK/+1uLkF9sQIyy2YOvl qsZiu7hImn39hzJRWbnjv9cxnT/zVs5Q0K32W4FJyqBP3YLmFPtE4UdES1wxDhuH kV6bW26ZyWLnt/txLQYY =crYh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
