Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Doug Goldstein wrote: Read the ChangeLog. It's there for a reason. It provides valuable knowledge and information about the package. I would expect any developer worth their salt to at least brush up on the ChangeLog for any package they are taking over. Surely the Changelog is no substitute for good informative comments alongside the code? Marijn - -- Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHFI30p/VmCx0OL2wRAsSEAKDH3RMmMmJCeqIFucwp3KcGnnrQNgCgx7WB hmBT1S8jmMbPGzpm6BNqqDo= =MyV4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are of course, free to ignore any and all suggestions offered; but you are not allowed to silence them. :0: * Subject:.*\[gentoo-dev\].*\[gentoo-commits\] /dev/null would neatly ignore the suggestions offered as well as creating relative silence. -- That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange eons even death may die. -- The Call of Cthulu, II. The Tale of Inspector Legrasse pgpHEDIbjiiJf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 00:12 Sun 14 Oct , Doug Goldstein wrote: Because if you pass the inverse the script blows up. It's ffmpeg's configure script that's a hand written script and modified by the MythTV developers. Sigh. Any chance of getting things to move to autotools? Thanks, Donnie Donnie, In my 4 years of experience with this package and maintaining it and contributing patches upstream. You don't think I've suggested it? You don't think I've tweaked this ebuild to work as best as possible for our users? I know the other thing I didn't answer was the fact that some variables aren't quoted. It doesn't matter at all considering their configure script can't handle spaces in the path names anyway. We've been though that already. Additionally, qmake can't handle spaces in there even if you do quote so it really doesn't matter much. Some of these review changes truly feel like working at a company where you know the ins and outs of your tool. You can rattle off its capabilities to a millimeter. A new boss/manager comes in and has no idea what the tool is or the mission but by god he knows how to do your job better and you will follow his procedures. It makes no difference if his steps have no effect on the tool and waste more of your time. You additionally have to start giving him progress reports on how you're doing using his procedures, which instantly means you get less work done. That's what this commits review list feels like. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
Doug Goldstein wrote: That's what this commits review list feels like. Nearly every suggestion (from Donnie and others) has been over some issue that relates directly to either correctness or maintainability. It doesn't matter if you can rattle off capabilities to a millimeter - if they're not documented somewhere (like, say, in the comments of the ebuild) then the maintainer that comes after you gets to go and break it all over again. jonathan. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
Jonathan Adamczewski wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: That's what this commits review list feels like. Nearly every suggestion (from Donnie and others) has been over some issue that relates directly to either correctness or maintainability. It doesn't matter if you can rattle off capabilities to a millimeter - if they're not documented somewhere (like, say, in the comments of the ebuild) then the maintainer that comes after you gets to go and break it all over again. jonathan. Correctness? Fine. Go ahead. Stick $(use_enable xvmc) into the ebuild. Do it. I dare you. Then try to compile. Guess what? When it blows up... that's called INcorrect. The opposite of the right thing. The maintainer who comes after me would be someone with a experience with the package. Some bumkin isn't going to come to maintain package XYZ unless they know or use the package, and guess what? That means experience. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
On 10/15/07, Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonathan Adamczewski wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: That's what this commits review list feels like. Nearly every suggestion (from Donnie and others) has been over some issue that relates directly to either correctness or maintainability. It doesn't matter if you can rattle off capabilities to a millimeter - if they're not documented somewhere (like, say, in the comments of the ebuild) then the maintainer that comes after you gets to go and break it all over again. jonathan. Correctness? Fine. Go ahead. Stick $(use_enable xvmc) into the ebuild. Do it. I dare you. Then try to compile. Guess what? When it blows up... that's called INcorrect. The opposite of the right thing. The maintainer who comes after me would be someone with a experience with the package. Some bumkin isn't going to come to maintain package XYZ unless they know or use the package, and guess what? That means experience. I think this assumption is false. People maintain packages they don't know the intricate details of all the time. You are of course, free to ignore any and all suggestions offered; but you are not allowed to silence them. -Alec -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
Alec Warner wrote: On 10/15/07, Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonathan Adamczewski wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: That's what this commits review list feels like. Nearly every suggestion (from Donnie and others) has been over some issue that relates directly to either correctness or maintainability. It doesn't matter if you can rattle off capabilities to a millimeter - if they're not documented somewhere (like, say, in the comments of the ebuild) then the maintainer that comes after you gets to go and break it all over again. jonathan. Correctness? Fine. Go ahead. Stick $(use_enable xvmc) into the ebuild. Do it. I dare you. Then try to compile. Guess what? When it blows up... that's called INcorrect. The opposite of the right thing. The maintainer who comes after me would be someone with a experience with the package. Some bumkin isn't going to come to maintain package XYZ unless they know or use the package, and guess what? That means experience. I think this assumption is false. People maintain packages they don't know the intricate details of all the time. You are of course, free to ignore any and all suggestions offered; but you are not allowed to silence them. -Alec I must have not received my silence/moderate remote control for the Gentoo mailing lists. Since I haven't received it, I clearly can't silence anyone on the mailing lists. I still stand by my original feeling that we'd better the community NOT only the developers doing the commits by updating the devmanual, which is accessible to all developers and all users in the Gentoo community. In addition to updating and cleaning up repoman checks, which is a tool that everyone in the community can use. This is versus individual examples in random ebuilds in random e-mails that all have almost an identical subject on the mailing list. The commits review is flawed because if we're not documenting this stuff in one central place, then when new developers join. The same lessons have to be learned over and over again. Then again, this depends on the QA guys actually doing something about the outstanding bugs. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
Christian Faulhammer wrote: Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jonathan Adamczewski wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: That's what this commits review list feels like. Nearly every suggestion (from Donnie and others) has been over some issue that relates directly to either correctness or maintainability. It doesn't matter if you can rattle off capabilities to a millimeter - if they're not documented somewhere (like, say, in the comments of the ebuild) then the maintainer that comes after you gets to go and break it all over again. Correctness? Fine. Go ahead. Stick $(use_enable xvmc) into the ebuild. Do it. I dare you. Then try to compile. Guess what? When it blows up... that's called INcorrect. The opposite of the right thing. You were kindly asked if is not possible to use, so why do you feel attacked? Do a comment on it and everybody would be fine, even the people that would have to maintain it some time in the future. If you don't like the review process, just ignore it. Reviews are not a way to show what kind of idiot the committer is, but to improve the overall quality of the tree. Nothing more, nothing less. No. You clearly don't understand where I'm coming from. I think the commits review is pointless and a waste of resources that could be better used doing other things. Since commits review is a cyclic process you will never achieve a perfect state that all developers commit perfect ebuilds to the tree since new devs come and go. And since we don't document any of this stuff properly in the devmanual, incoming devs have to constantly relearn the same lessons that previous incoming devs learned through the review process. Effective workers work in 4 stages, we're effectively with this approach remaining in stage 1 and never progressing and admitting we will never progress. The maintainer who comes after me would be someone with a experience with the package. Some bumkin isn't going to come to maintain package XYZ unless they know or use the package, and guess what? That means experience. Yes, and the same goes for GNU Emacs, I needed some time to figure out what all those things did and I broke it several times because I tried to be clever. Now we documented it and I think everyone coming after us will have a less hard time to understand it. Better document it, you never know what happens. V-Li Read the ChangeLog. It's there for a reason. It provides valuable knowledge and information about the package. I would expect any developer worth their salt to at least brush up on the ChangeLog for any package they are taking over. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
On 16:57 Mon 15 Oct , Doug Goldstein wrote: I still stand by my original feeling that we'd better the community NOT only the developers doing the commits by updating the devmanual, which is accessible to all developers and all users in the Gentoo community. In addition to updating and cleaning up repoman checks, which is a tool that everyone in the community can use. This is versus individual examples in random ebuilds in random e-mails that all have almost an identical subject on the mailing list. The commits review is flawed because if we're not documenting this stuff in one central place, then when new developers join. The same lessons have to be learned over and over again. Doing the review helps us figure out what the common issues are, so we actually know what's worth documenting. I've had in mind all along getting common issues into docs and into repoman, which is why I wrote the original quoting patch. Also, just because something is documented doesn't mean people do it. Furthermore, just because a doc says write code without bugs doesn't mean people are physically capable of doing so. More eyes on the code can never hurt. Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/mythtv: ChangeLog mythtv-0.20.2_p14668.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14666.ebuild mythtv-0.21_pre14480-r1.ebuild
On 00:12 Sun 14 Oct , Doug Goldstein wrote: Because if you pass the inverse the script blows up. It's ffmpeg's configure script that's a hand written script and modified by the MythTV developers. Sigh. Any chance of getting things to move to autotools? Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
