On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:13:50 AM Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Dne 9.3.2011 13:08, Alexis Ballier napsal(a): > > On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:23:03 PM Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > >> Dne 8.3.2011 15:51, Alexis Ballier napsal(a): > >>> On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 09:28:13 AM Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote: > >>>> scarabeus 11/03/08 12:28:13 > >>>> > >>>> Modified: ChangeLog > >>>> Added: libva-1.0.10.ebuild > >>>> Log: > >>>> Update to libva shipped by freedesktop. So we do the same as debian > >>>> or > >>>> > >>>> archlinux. Fixes bug #336854. > >>> > >>> Please read metadata.xml before committing... > >> > >> I did, x11 is the herd last time i looked. > > > > x11 is the herd because when I added it I thought that it was low level > > enough that x11 may help from time to time. This never gave the right to > > anyone to break and hijack it without discussion nor notice like you > > did. > > Since it seems to be more a burden than a help, I'll remove x11 herd from > > metadata too when removing the fdo version. > > > > Maybe something you didn't understand: herd/maintainership isn't about > > territoriality and giving the right to commit crap, it's about area of > > responsability. > > > >>> How comes I'm supposed to be the maintainer and have not seen any > >>> single discussion about it ? Why is it better, etc ? Being a "mouton > >>> de Panurge" is not a reason [1] :) > >>> The only "better" thing I see is a greater version number. May I > >>> suggest you to run a diff and explain me why such a change was needed > >>> ? > >> > >> ok lovely list: > >> 1) it has freedesktop web page, and we should preffer fdo alternatives > >> anyway > > > > yes, didnt you think that maybe there's a reason I've been using the sds > > version for almost one year ? > > You never named them anywhere.
Indeed, I always thought that's the one that wants to change something that needs to explain why. Moreover, I understood you don't care about them since you didn't even bother to ask before committing. As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, heh, some fixes and improvements I'm using..." > > >> 2) it has existing git repo (could not find repo for the va you use) > > > > you clearly didnt run a diff... its the fdo version + a debian/patches > > dir with, heh, some fixes and improvements I'm using... > > I did run a diff, what am I supposed to trust some weird patches not > signed or commited to some repo... you can, eg, review the patches, and decide if you want them or not > > >> 3) debian/archlinux/fedora use this one I commited, not former one. > > > > so what? > > We have this tendency to use what others do so... This is what I called being a "mouton de Panurge" in my first email ;) I have this tendency to use what I am convinced is the best. > >> 4) the bug was reported to you with x11 CC and you had 6 months already > >> to at least reply to it why/if you don't agree with the switch. > >> Suprisingly we try to close long-open bugs with no-maintainer reply. > > > > There was no reply because I didn't see the point, for now, to flame > > users by telling them that a version number doesnt necessarily bring > > them more code nor features. I thought gentoo developers were aware of > > that. I was wrong. I left it open because I thought, at some point, that > > we will not need the sds version. I don't think it's the case now. > > So first you say you was not aware of the discussion, now you say you > just didn't feel the need to reply. Maybe we do not have the same definition of a "discussion". Nobody compared it to the sds version, nobody said we should drop the sds version, the only thing I've ever seen is that it has a greater version number... A discussion would have been someone explaining why we should move away from sds to fdo and we could have weighted the alternatives. > I did see that you commited copied version of older one, given the fancy > amount of people just doing cp a b for version bumps and not bothering > by any bugs I just went ahead and looked what other guys does and made > it same. You shouldn't assume people are stupid by default ;) in case of doubt, sending an email never killed anyone. > I would commit the update even if it would be libva-0.0.1 I > didn't do it for sake of the version. > > > Seeing that I bumped it ~1 week ago, did you really expect that it was an > > abandonned package and that you were saving it ? Were you trying to > > hijack it? Or maybe just piss me off ? > > Just consider I tried to piss you off if you have this attitude. I could > not care less about some libva if i would not be looking on that bug for > some time without any damn reply from maintainer and x11 in CC. A ping on the bug would have been more appropriate ;) > I usually ask on irc, but given the fact you don't bother with the > media... If I were on irc I would be idle most of the time. Email or bgo are more reliable medias if you want to get an answer. > just remove x11 from herds and enjoy your package. > > You might also consider dropping x11 from x11-libs/vdpau-video > fair enough A.
