Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Gentoo Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/)
-   -   gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/527030-gentoo-x86-commit-app-arch-bzip2-bzip2-1-0-5-r1-ebuild.html)

Alec Warner 05-16-2011 07:45 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
>> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
>> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
>> > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
>> > conclusive.
>> To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer
>> following the list) it is a good way to learn from others' mistake
>> before applying for full developership.
>>
>
> This may be a bit of surprise to you but this is not an educational
> list. If you people disagree with these kind of commits feel free to
> open a bug to QA/Devrel like the policy suggests. But pretty please
> try to break this non-sense loop of this and similar threads.

I actually value times when this stuff is CC'd to the list, is there
some other list you think folks should CC problems on?

>
> Regards,
> --
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
>

Markos Chandras 05-16-2011 07:51 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:45:14PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> >> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> >> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
> >> > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
> >> > conclusive.
> >> To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer
> >> following the list) it is a good way to learn from others' mistake
> >> before applying for full developership.
> >>
> >
> > This may be a bit of surprise to you but this is not an educational
> > list. If you people disagree with these kind of commits feel free to
> > open a bug to QA/Devrel like the policy suggests. But pretty please
> > try to break this non-sense loop of this and similar threads.
>
> I actually value times when this stuff is CC'd to the list, is there
> some other list you think folks should CC problems on?
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> >
>
This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on gentoo-dev
list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established policies which
should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels like it worths
pushing it so far.

Regards,
--
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Ciaran McCreesh 05-16-2011 07:52 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
> gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
> policies which should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels
> like it worths pushing it so far.

No, it's reminding a developer of what current policies are. And if one
developer has forgotten or hasn't seen recent changes, others are
probably in the same situation too, so a friendly reminder where
everyone can see it helps everyone.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

Markos Chandras 05-16-2011 07:59 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:52:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
> > gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
> > policies which should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels
> > like it worths pushing it so far.
>
> No, it's reminding a developer of what current policies are. And if one
> developer has forgotten or hasn't seen recent changes, others are
> probably in the same situation too, so a friendly reminder where
> everyone can see it helps everyone.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran,

I would agree with you if this wasn't the second time we talk about this
within a week.

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_64aa35ae3aff8e711fc280c238d8f44c.xml

Regards,
--
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Dane Smith 05-16-2011 08:01 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/16/11 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
>> gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
>> policies which should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels
>> like it worths pushing it so far.
>
> No, it's reminding a developer of what current policies are. And if one
> developer has forgotten or hasn't seen recent changes, others are
> probably in the same situation too, so a friendly reminder where
> everyone can see it helps everyone.
>

I agree with you when it isn't a recent topic of "reminder" in -dev.
This is the third such e-mail since 4/29. Reminding has been done. The
"technical" discussion has occurred. Policy has been debated. This is
ruddy simple folks. *Update* the ChangeLog.

I don't think another mailing list is the answer. Issues with commits
should come to -dev for sure. Reminding can certainly occur on this one
as well. But when I see the same issue come up 3 times in less than one
month with almost the same title, it becomes a nuisance. The rule is simple.

So please, if only to save us seeing more -dev spam, update your
ChangeLogs =D.

Regards,

- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN0YKTAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxMsQP/2l8ai04ICf8gYg+0fXS3U45
XuvgPk/fFd1yPSDCS4K6duAMQBJ3lgJLNZpW0keBv+UFP07eeRr8EcFfm 1P/lBYW
cyuCPWjUMHWW0pYx5t+E5iOpe+NaR4nRN274CzFsOG8lpbMtGf C0u36UmsxfLk9K
ELQki+ExBbAj3N9eMpH9gZ+PaW/l6pICZLt/ygGB8GbZXqrO1OMjQI5M4CyyZyvV
ewnf/PxvKLRU14gfNDNRs7XfOVuerxda/2uWlU6fMoaidvIpdYKYez55wEVx7aC8
ZLHeQkTdtZ0rIIOkvv6N3lM5V8DWiTDoOgKw/6ncAUi6q0unwncJQlg0+QiuYkud
/EkwvV7yrJ36aQmdg44F9mAVqiNil1u7BOYqHsDWCr+c2gkDYr0 6a9YhWrJX7juE
DIugEug79hbC1xcZZCeDx9o5ANTOg15jTEHLPLj0kw2Js14CZd OdOUiZLQTtdmW5
MlGUbt1iI6xnf2wMXSzKSkUg7n68o5eLwOgxILyMla2AlI3W60 p0zHk/LHYcbcNz
FxZH3M/g3gx7Tc9EvcteqN0Wwy+2xVwZ5h4TQV2a/h6Bgo/VSf9Yll/PjS1OEvdU
JH29IXW+uWSS5PAC5iOrNi1rkpIMiH6ceXJr9CtTDohllpd0Mq 3CreXKaMaVT90G
GVizH5BOPgVJ9a+6cqaG
=HEyM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mike Frysinger 06-07-2011 07:53 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> > vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
> >
> > Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
> > Log:
> > old
>
> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.

waste of time. i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs
start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.

> It'd also be better to do this all as one commit and run repoman with
> each commit.

seems you left out "imo" in this statement.
-mike

Dane Smith 06-07-2011 08:47 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>>> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
>>>
>>> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>> Log:
>>> old
>>
>> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
>
> waste of time. i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs
> start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.
>
snip
> -mike

Mike,
To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't
going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs
about ChangeLogging removals. You and I both know that a removal can
(and sometimes does) cause breakage. These kinds of changes are things
that your fellow devs (as well as many users) would like to see in
ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an unreasonable request. I
find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when any developer fails
to heed a reasonable request from another developer or user. I know I
personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do something
slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that you
can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for
a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the
extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on.

Regards,
- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN7o5hAAoJEEsurZwMLhUx2RcP/ip1lKohjB46iWA/T0Mb2eoa
Vro488IDBMSOXy6L+JvKW4vh2EOfJl8g5PGgJuJhM9OmiLgYxm OgBCPpbCtu21hj
FlJc5jKc3qN+0So1ka0Tez/toccA5d0lxPpZWitxDnEtMzQ6M46eEUv00EZN8yle
o/UP94Inlp4miYXTGeyw2HKL8GP5su53/gYFidWQyzewEBYlvIFaIvyTPmJmbT5b
ztgdlEr/xWS12OcUM8PymoOIw86dc8VcGPlPP5PaAx97T8o8OTG3q8lzx6 naqYGN
IyWFCNCrJJXSjQptIDALm3TU3qGe4/2pDbo7JuRCA8fG/i6+bKDEhJuKwBCnvIp/
YJR/PL6IlOInsBrTdew78MG2MqRnsOebBZ5a7rRDMfqSLrB4GHLisu yE8oHlyU8W
A6ABRIi9yZIQrQG9TMcywNjTT8ejse9gL+Xrm03Aveb37FdrbQ V5Nu+a5/wkaYOU
3e/3X9eRTFK7FdaWsAjXzGyS/8b7WtKioCEFTo4giP5R6lucLpVqqMYkuhAxAzMX
y1u+57aZVUfZTBVksfQyQApVU/j+4UgUdMUBWuoX7F4i19almlm7U5egWh7wmBNi
oKsUz6OcsvZ00x5Hr8xTrFEWaxE5CGyThjX0npblPLni9ZyppJ yEz9P2YZ9OscGH
FL1nIoSPHBeBznWaKnzO
=z3hd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mike Frysinger 06-07-2011 09:09 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't
> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs
> about ChangeLogging removals.

how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other
people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on the
policy towards creating it.

> You and I both know that a removal can (and sometimes does) cause breakage.
> These kinds of changes are things that your fellow devs (as well as many
> users) would like to see in ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an
> unreasonable request. I find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when
> any developer fails to heed a reasonable request from another developer or
> user. I know I personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do
> something slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that
> you can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for
> a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the
> extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on.

if you want useless information, then automate it. there's no reason at all
to not do so. i prefer to keep useful information in the changelogs of
packages i maintain without cluttering up with noise.
-mike

Samuli Suominen 06-07-2011 09:09 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
On 06/07/2011 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>>> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
>>>
>>> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>> Log:
>>> old
>>
>> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
>
> waste of time. i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs
> start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.

+1, see: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c75

and I have to say it's all on councils shoulders how bad of an impact
this will have on the tree with several devs leaving old files around or
leaving trivial fixes uncommitted to workaround bad policy.

"Andreas K. Huettel" 06-07-2011 09:14 PM

gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
 
> On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
(...)
> > waste of time. i simply wont bother removing old versions until
> > changelogs start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.

For the record, I support Dane's statement 100%.

In addition, I would like to say that you're behaving pretty much childish and
obstructive.

--

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:05 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.