On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Samuli Suominen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31/10/12 17:09, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:57:49 -0300 >> Alexis Ballier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:18:02 +0100 >>> Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> >>>> Don't even try to touch any of my eclasses without prior asking. >>> >>> >>> A bit aggressive but its rather obvious that this is the norm not the >>> exception, meaning the argument 'I do not want to diverge from >>> $other eclass' is moot. >> >> >> It's aggressive because Samuli has a history of touching (and sometimes >> breaking) other people's packages without even asking or pinging that >> he did that, and believing he's above all the rules here. >> > > You don't know me clearly, that's definately the opposite of what I'm doing > and intending to do, walking the fine line and bothering people only when > something real changes... > > Breaking? Hardly, since I never commit untested code, and the exceptions > I've fixed myself usually very quickly as I'm watching incoming bugs, > forums, and more > > I'm being cooperative with you and keeping udev.eclass with systemd.eclass > sort of 'in sync' due to the nature of both > packages being from the same tarball. What more do you want? Seriously. >
Please stop _NOW_. The thread is about the eclass review. Either comment on that or go flame somewhere else. Did he break your eclass this time or is this a preemptive complain just in case he does in the future? -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
