On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:16:25 -0700 > "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So assuming the council says we should fix all these issues (and in >> most cases I would support that assertion) >> who would fix them? The maintainer is obviously hostile and I doubt >> the council is going to *force* them to accept said >> patches. Is QA going to fix these bugs? > > If PMS has official standing, the maintainer will. >
I'm a maintainer and I'll say right out that I won't fix things unless they make sense to me; regardless of what some council says. That being said if people provide patches and/or commit said patches; more power to them. My point still stands that you cannot force these maintainers who disagree with a change to suddenly make them; you either need to convince them that the changes are correct and proper or you need to find another willing group to make said changes. >> > Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage >> > that break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by >> > PMS, under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... >> >> Also some developers seem quite happy making changes to PMS that break >> existing packages >> that rely upon behavior as defined by Portage; under the assertion >> that "Portage is a broken/buggy piece of software" > > Only in cases where Portage's behaviour is unspecifiable. > >> That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes; I doubt >> you can compel him to comply with PMS >> 100% unless this is driven by developers themselves. He (not unlike >> me) is kind of a pragmatic fellow. > > Please explain how deliberately and knowingly breaking existing ebuilds > without bothering to work out the consequences, and refusing to fix it > with the hope that no-one will notice is pragmatic. > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh >
