On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:36 AM Aaron Bauman <b...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On August 1, 2020 6:25:09 AM EDT, Lars Wendler <polynomia...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > > >Honestly... seeing such replies from you or knowing that you do not > >hesitate to hit other devs with your full QA deputy power once they > >dare to touch python packages is not motivating in any way to even > >consider helping you. > > > Lars, do you not recall the previous threads on this? The very same questions > were answered about tooling.
I'm sure everybody is tired of reading these threads over and over. Simply saying that you answered these questions doesn't mean that people will be satisfied with your answers. > I see plenty of other devs and contributors touch Python packages with no > problems... Is it just you maybe? You probably aren't being driven up the wall by these 50-reply threads because only one dev has a problem with the approach that has been taken in the past. > Provide tooling? Not good enough. Well, not if you don't advertise the tooling, and the tools don't output maintainer info so that maintainers can quickly determine if they're impacted. > Provide a reasonable timeline? Not good enough. Nobody has complained about timelines as far as I'm aware. > Open bugs? We ignore them. I'm not aware of ANYBODY who has complained about action being taken after a bug was assigned to them. Yes, some people ignore bugs. They don't get much sympathy. If you file a bug and somebody ignores it for months, and then you depclean their package, nobody is going to take their side. The complaints you are getting are from devs who find out about a problem with their package for the first time from a package mask, perhaps due to a dependency/etc. In any case, it sounds like we're now filing bugs, so hopefully we'll see fewer problems like this the next time around. Really, if you're filing bugs I'd suggest leading with that as it will get you a LOT more support than just pointing out the previous threads that nobody seems to think were resolved but you. -- Rich
