2011/4/16 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>:
> Ok enough.
> We _ARE_ headed for a fork between rpm5.org <-> Mandriva if these check-ins 
> continue.
> I've asked for discussion first. Not happening.
> I've asked for a feature list. Not seen.
> I've pointed out that many of these changes are ancient hysteria being
> recycled as Newer! Better! Bestest!
> There is noone asking for these changes. Show me.
These are already in use on Mandriva and part of the helpers migrated
from rpm-mandriva-setup.

> There are no test cases. I will make that policy MANDATORY if necessary.
> There is nothing but a 1-line description, essentially
>        Add new stuff.
> No examples, no writeup, no usage case, nothing.
Both commit messages, entry in CHANGES and the code itself should
generally have at least the bare minimum to provide some pointers for it..
> Its happening on the "production" branch (in this case) creating
> divergence that I have to muck about with later, often breaking
> code because I haven't any clue what is what.
I've placed it under mandriva #ifdef, so it shouldn't break things for
anyone else on the
production branch..
> None of this code is maintainable or useful imho until some of the above is 
> corrected.
If I'm gonna be able to migrate to the internal dependency generator, I must add
these to avoid ~regressions.

If a discussion and test cases is required provided first, I won't be
able to have time to
switching to the internal dependency before after next mandriva release..

Or I can go back to maintaining patches locally in cooker svn..?

Per Øyvind
RPM Package Manager                                    http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List                        rpm-devel@rpm5.org

Reply via email to