-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/04/2012 06:17 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > I'm sorry but isn't specific policy related to global policy? Why > yes, yes it is. >
Unless they conflict, then no. > >> On 12/04/2012 09:10 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > >>> If we are going to document this policy and make it official >>> (which since it's not documented it's not official) then it >>> only makes sense to have an opt-out option. I personally don't >>> wish to see my users suffer for 2-4 weeks because I'm busy and >>> people are pretending to be polite. > >>> I have no issue with this policy, but to do it without an >>> explicit option to opt-out is not acceptable to me. > >> This certainly depends on the severity of the bug. If you think >> my text can be improved please provide a new patch or tell me >> what exactly you would describe differently. > > A patch against what? I've not seen a link, only vague references > to the dev manual. You missed to look at the initial post which refers to https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445402 which includes a patch for the devmanual. > >> The vague character of this policy is a bit on purpose, otherwise >> you would have to describe every possible case. That's not what I >> want here. > > If we are vaguely defining a policy of not touching other peoples > packages then the only specific thing in that policy should be what > is exempt (which would be "if xyz is in the metadata.xml then > follow those instructions over this policy"). > > This is VERY much on topic. I am really unhappy that people are > writing policy that will get me less help and more work, and I > won't be happy until I have a way to tell others that in the > metadata.xml and the "policy" you are writing refers to it. > The global policy is a general policy and does not overrule any developer saying "touch my packages at will". That would not make sense. There are already numerous ways to do that, in the ebuild and in the description field in metadata.xml. If you want more ways to communicate that to other devs, then propose something, open a bug, open a new thread. So what in this policy do you disagree with? This is _not_ just about your own packages, this is a tree-wide policy which is more or less already in action. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQvjOYAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzoj0H/1g4iV63w0/slCoZgXVRumEf bovcEEqctUvl7ayyNuPdu7mzcOeyWfLTG7/4Xqpntn/XzNvOtU9pTi5/GAoPYSqt rbSH/RpREgS3pQNctDqcB4zi7DVdCY5ugQBs/M9m/CWKpUsWwSZpp7/bsa3f9t2U DOdEQjP35EWr9XP3kbSY/J2U5lSYhX/1n8SNlKGMKnwVes4RlKxC2MVTMoodGjW3 12wfpQ1FjAgF5hkz1HfM0tgrDPp994Iiu9wdjp6FtqHZVSZye0MetNu2AvuTH8Ft Cs2Isf9Y5dJ+p48BWEY9jWwQRD+/H7TgAj6G7NarYGJ4u4lLe4Sf9qBO/BFN3fA= =IPl8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
