> Bugzilla is a tool for developers to track progress, not for > third-party distributions to track progress. You've forked the tree. > That's fine. The license allows that. But it doesn't obligate us to > adapt our tools to fit your purpose.
I've done lots of version bump bugs over the years. my reasons for doing so may have changed. But the general process has not. Does it matter if I've forked? doesn't the package still need an update? > Your behavior on bug 260582 was clearly unacceptable. You > seem to think that we owe you something. Please re-examine your > premises. Donnie already told you he was working on it. Our job is not > to support your distribution. It is to make the best distro for > ourselves. In the case of xorg-server, that means getting something > into the tree that works. A masked ebuild will in this case be more > bother than it's worth because the mask would have to encompass a > bunch of other packages. Which leads me on to the next paragraph... this and all the cases given are examples, and perhaps my behavior was unacceptable. But I think the response to my bug was too. No gentoo doesn't owe me or regen2, a thing. It might, however, owe users something. I agree on committing ebuilds that work, that doesn't mean I don't have the right to open a bug and watch for progress reports. > In many cases that's true, but on average, the QA of the tree is much > better than overlays. I couldn't say... I suppose I agree yes on most overlays, but a few are supposed to be more 'exceptional'. the biggest problem is the bugs that result between ebuilds in the tree and those of overlays. like one I filed on virtual/perl-Mime-Base64. or like how inkscape won't build against 5.10, except with patches already in bugzilla, but both cases seemed to be one of 'perl 5.10 isn't in the tree so we won't fix' I think they should put it in before 5.10 is in the tree. put that's just me. > We Need Git. It would really ease the workflow of accepting user > contributions if users could just set up their own overlay and sent me > an email asking to merge their changesets. git's great. but I've actually found 'merging' changesets to be a bad idea from people. It can lead to some really sloppy commits, and merging is a less stringent review than cherry-picking patches. > You could > have made thousands of commits already, fixing a substantial amount of > the problems you've raised. thousands seem like a high number. I think I've been pushing an average one 1 patch per day since january to the tree (my tree). *laughing* I'm still the #1 contributor of git patches to funtoo. > This isn't a quick fix. > You'll have to work with people and > that can sometimes be frustrating. I already have to 'work' with these people, the difference would be what? how much respect I get? in gentoo land having @gentoo.org seems to mean something... if you don't have that, you seem to auto-magically get less respect, than you would if you did have it. > But you'll get to be part of the > development process and you'll get to work with the things you care > about. you mean I'll be part of 'a' development process and work on some of the things I care about. Obviously stepping on other developers toes seems to be a taboo. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
