On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > > To me it's obvious that he did it because it made something easier > for him. By breaking the Gentoo rule he got something done.
Rules exist for a reason. If we're bending them because we're accomplishing the goal of the rules in a better way that makes sense. If we're just breaking them because following them is inconvenient then we're causing harm. The purpose of the 30-day rule is so that stable is, well, stable. Stable doesn't mean "I think this should work." Stable means that it has been tested and found to work - a time delay is almost essential to the definition of "stability." There is room for an exception if there is some serious problem in stable and the risk of causing harm is low compared to the pain already being felt. Security bugs usually involve breaking the 30-day rule, for example. In these cases the spirit of the rule is contrary to the letter of the rule, and we rightly violate the letter as a result. There is no harm in pointing out that a rule was broken. If there is a good reason it will be produced and everybody will nod, and if not, well, then hopefully there will be an apology and we'll just move on. Neither blacklisting nor banishment are the right first response to a minor offense, but devs have been booted for consistently violating rules like the 30 day rule, and I would expect mentors and recruiters to ensure that new recruits understand and intend to follow this rule. Anybody who runs a stable system is better off for it. Countless threads on -dev (mail or irc) amount to "I'd like to violate this rule for a good reason." There is some debate, and we either do it or not. Rules aren't intended to prevent progress, but quality is important and if a rule is standing in your way there might be some side of the problem that you're not seeing. It never hurts to ask before breaking a rule. Rich
