On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 00:47 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2019-09-05 22:16, Michał Górny wrote: > > > But as per the way the dev manual is written, he arguably *is* > > > following policy. > > > > > > Stop taking the line of assuming he's trying to be belligerent. > > > > He says explicitly that he is against fixing devmanual because he likes > > the way he can abuse it right now. > > You are the only one adding _abuse_ here. Stop that, thanks. When I > replied to your mail I was just asking... nothing more. I don't > understand why you are reading so much into it. > > But yes, I like the current exception for "per-package" eclasses like I > am concerned that a review requirement would cause a significant delay: > > Back to my example, imagine we would move pkg_config to new mysql > eclass. If we would bump mysql/percona-server/mariadb package and will > receive bug reports later because upstream changed something causing > pkg_config to fail we would now have to propose a patch, wait 48 > hours... i.e. package would be broken for ~72 hours just because of a > policy I don't reject in general (yes, I like reviews) but where I think > exceptions must be possible.
Are you really saying that if you push buggy eclass (without review?), then you need to push yet another eclass to fix it? If so, then it looks like something is really wrong with your workflow. > So for my understanding this is not about 'fixing' devmanual. It's about > *changing* devmanual which I *just* pointed out. But whoever will > propose changing devmanual should support such a change because he/she > will probably have to argue for that change. Something I cannot do when > I like status quo like I do currently or have concerns. So you don't believe in civil duty over your private interest. Okay, understood. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
