On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 01:26 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Hi, > > On 2019-09-04 20:59, Michał Górny wrote: > > Devmanual is pretty clear on the fact that *all* new eclasses require ml > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > review *before* committing: > > I am also working on a new eclass so I looked up details regarding > what's needed to add a new eclass recently. > > I must say that I disagree that it's *pretty* clear. > > > Adding and Updating Eclasses > > > > Before committing a new eclass to the tree, it should be emailed > > ^^^^^^ > > to the gentoo-dev mailing list with a justification and a > > proposed implementation. Do not skip this step — sometimes a > > better implementation or an alternative which does not require a > > new eclass will be suggested. > > > > Before updating [...] > > > > The exceptions to this rule are per-package eclasses. For > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > example, the apache-2 eclass is only used by the www-servers/apache > > package, and thus does not typically require changes to be emailed > > for review. > > In my case I am working on a new mysql eclass to outsource pkg_config > function which is shared at least between dev-db/mysql and > dev-db/percona-server (and maybe dev-db/mariadb). > > For this new eclass I would say it's a "per-package" eclass and would > probably have skipped mailing list review, too.
Everyone can skip as many paragraphs as they want, and then apply what's said later to something said way earlier. > > If you want to make it clear, change "should" to "must" and maybe > clarify per-package exception and limit to update case if you believe > that really *all* *new* eclasses must be send to mailing list. Submit a part. This is a community effort. Nitpicking and complaining doesn't make things better. Fixing them does. > > -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
