[gentoo-dev] New acct-* package policy
Hello, everyone. The Council has approved removing policy part from GLEP 81 [1] which enabled QA to establish a new easier policy for acct-* packages [2]. The most important change is that the requirement of gentoo-dev RFC is removed. Instead, developers just take the next free UID/GID in range 499..101 and commit the packages at will. The policy recommends going downwards from 499, and taking the same number for matching user/group (even if it would mean leaving gaps in assignments). Please commit and push uid-gid.txt [3] change to data/api.git *before* your packages. This makes sure that any potential collisions are caught as merge conflicts before they hit users. The CI also catches UID/GID collisions. I hope this will make migrating packages to the new system much easier. Thanks to all the people participating in the effort. [1] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0081.html [2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies#GLEP_81_.28acct-.2A.29_package_policy [3] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/api.git/tree/files/uid-gid.txt -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] elisp{,-common}.eclass update for emacs-vcs consolidation
On 21/12/19 11:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> And for the record, commenting on standards in response to a series of >> commits that display low standards is not a personal attack. > *shrug* As a matter of fact, I've run that series of commits past the > QA lead, who has approved them. > FWIW, the QA lead doesn't always reflect the opinion of the whole QA team .. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] elisp{,-common}.eclass update for emacs-vcs consolidation
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > And for the record, commenting on standards in response to a series of > commits that display low standards is not a personal attack. *shrug* As a matter of fact, I've run that series of commits past the QA lead, who has approved them.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] elisp{,-common}.eclass update for emacs-vcs consolidation
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > And then you tried to use my suggestion to be extra careful and run a > CI check against me, which is obnoxious, so there you go. Maybe you shouldn't suggest usage of non-free tools (like Github) then? It's everyone's own choice if they want to use such tools, but it certainly cannot be part of any standard workflow.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] elisp{,-common}.eclass update for emacs-vcs consolidation
On 12/21/19 6:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> I was being safe, and assuming that your standards for shell scripting >> are as low as your standards for tree quality. > > Nice, resorting to a personal attack when out of arguments. :( > And for the record, commenting on standards in response to a series of commits that display low standards is not a personal attack.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] elisp{,-common}.eclass update for emacs-vcs consolidation
On 12/21/19 6:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> I was being safe, and assuming that your standards for shell scripting >> are as low as your standards for tree quality. > > Nice, resorting to a personal attack when out of arguments. :( > I'm not out of arguments because you haven't addressed any of them. You just said you were going to ignore the policy and break things anyway. And then you tried to use my suggestion to be extra careful and run a CI check against me, which is obnoxious, so there you go.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] elisp{,-common}.eclass update for emacs-vcs consolidation
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I was being safe, and assuming that your standards for shell scripting > are as low as your standards for tree quality. Nice, resorting to a personal attack when out of arguments. :(
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] elisp{,-common}.eclass update for emacs-vcs consolidation
On 12/21/19 1:57 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > See? You say it yourself, with 400 revbumps there is quite some chance > for breakage. > I was being safe, and assuming that your standards for shell scripting are as low as your standards for tree quality.
