-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/31/2014 01:50 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 30/03/14 23:45, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >> >> Your input will be considered here with all the weight it deserves. My >> mask was to force this discussion on the list and it has done it's job >> well. > > So, you admit breaking the policy of gentoo-dev being a optional ML > for developers[1] > > I really dislike the recent trend of some newer developers trying to force > everything to be discussed here, even if the involved people have already > discussed it elsewhere with relavent people
Given that the eudev maintainers already said these changes were made without discussing with them, clearly you missed some "relevant" people. Additionally, it was only after the added attention which I brought that it was noticed that the udev ebuilds had improper pdepends on the virtual. If not for the added eyes and attention who knows when that would have been caught, likely after stabilization. You are welcome for the bug fix. > > [1] > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?full=1#book_part1_chap3 > > "3.h. Mailing lists > All developers must be subscribed to the gentoo-core and > gentoo-dev-announce mailing lists. All developers should be subscribed > to gentoo-dev and gentoo-project," > > *should*, not *must* > > Likewise, http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/virtuals/index.html > > "Before adding a new virtual, it should be discussed on |gentoo-dev|." > > *should*, not *must* > > You can't change the policies on your own without rest of the QA team, > rest of the council, and so forth. I didn't change the policy, I felt that your change was important enough that it deserved discussion, especially after bugs were found AND relevant people were mentioning on irc that they were unhappy about being left out. > > QA is for enforcing estabilished policies, not making up them as you go > based on your personal likes and dislikes. > > Futhermore no productive discussion has happened here as you masqueraded > the use of subslotting you supposedly want to be discussed, > to be somehow udev specific. I want the the fact that a single package now has one virtual per lib so that proper subslot rebuilds can happen to be discussed. Earlier in this thread, before you divulged into personal attacks, it was discussed lightly. Clearly, no one felt strongly against it, and with this discussion done, I am happy to be out of your way on this. > But that's not suprising as you yourself admitted you started all of > this only because you saw the word 'udev': > > Freenode, #gentoo-qa, at the same time you started this endeavour: > > 18:19 <@Zero_Chaos> granted, the udev changes sparked this line of thought. > I know english isn't everyone's first language, but even completely out of context this statement doesn't at all mean what you are claiming it does. I couldn't possibly care less that this was udev related. "the udev changes sparked this line of thought" means that the changes to udev made me think of how using virtuals in this new way could possibly be dangerous. I had previously not noticed the same was suggested (and shot down) for poplar, so this was a completely new idea which had not been discussed anywhere I have seen. Again, now that I brought it to - -dev (after you refused to do so) and no one else seems to care, I am out of your way, and I hope it goes as well as you believe it will. > So, congratulations for making the QA team look like a crapshoot once again. > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48 "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting. The package should be dealt with per QA's request until such a time that a decision is made by the council." Per GLEP 48 your actions of reverting the QA mask (the first time) was entirely inappropriate, and your personal attacks on me are even more so. While you flaunt the fact that the rules do not apply to you maybe you should be less concerned with how QA looks and more concerned with how your behavior makes you look. We can continue this pointless back and forth for as long as you like, but honestly, there will be no winner, only two losers. Let's just wait for comrel to resolve my complaint against you with no action and move on with our lives. I think we both have better things to do, I know I do. Thanks, Zero -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTOdGAAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKdEYP/icwMgYxNfaUsqKJNFCznd7N HvuGxgz0qeobsny51TL+Cr/Mqv+nW1hcGhxHz6X2Ndd19Hr84d3maq7+bEBRrGxG PNItodqjEgPvcsbiUQ29hEcz63iZXfhBkvDh9tjXSAZNRaKrOPiVLAQG4w9Ys8e3 YKYWrF0z7EDcoPwn5WfrY284xWBd/VmWTIJPLeIZmBrlA36UthJLa5FLOHUlk0vL /sQfnrH9blzwsDb2vV9PMI2jFLgXffcrad5Od3zz5DWBF7MU7b70gXaExJlcqzjW lbz7pq/aSaEWzQOK1mz4d6S+Lwl4r2RC0pPeTVCzSAJwLsyNbOC4M/CRx6/ShjR0 Dv7ViNcJbSfNioza9uOPoONlmtFECm2lZhuCcA1jGjTx+4BN6zHpWu06mvf1Slqw RIuCVLbgUtJIGVPFlBJXvkJ0XIRsociJq1xE7ODsGEpEzFtMtIro0TCvP2iOJARa Uw8mnGWO7ov/h7ahDMC0A1iiXBP/ZzW14+vo7EsT4Lj1GyWMYRFJkFbCZeOSIw68 2go4fvosmFQdEctAVGWFbH0hWYaWEYxPvpfsPSVAUOz3hMO9Slc+kwUUgXU8aKN1 xj0eUor+QN3EHQ3Zokvlg1nfUBm/yIrXMWvjF6+5WSGqPAs1khoc4Pb/X4cfCaAB p7te3CfK3mNOytohr8kp =E4Ui -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----