On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: > В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +0000, Duncan пишет: >> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as >> excerpted: >> >>> Duncan schrieb: >>>> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day >>>> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes stepped on as >>>> a result of the broken policy. No more nasty threads about (this) >>>> broken policy and unhappy maintainers as a result! =:^) >>> >>> Actually removing a package that doesn't violate any (written) rules >>> without maintainer consensus could be considered a violation of policy >>> too. >>> >>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml Respect >>> existing maintainers: >>> Never commit when someone else has clear ownership. Never commit on >>> things with unclear ownership until you've tried to clear it up. > > Samuli pretends here to act as a part of QA team (although he is not). > Actually even whiteboard of stabilization bug tells #at _earliest_ 17 > Oct" and thus there is really no sign for rush. This is the case where > QA should voice and either explain why fast stabilization of libpng is > so important or stop policy breakage. That said it became really common > to break our own policies (with no attempts to amend policy).
full stop. you are forcing me to bisect the history of pngcrush. in 2007, I grab the package from no-herd: http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 then I version bump it and give it to graphics herd to which I'm a team member of: http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.3&r2=1.4 at this point everything was still fine. http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.4&r2=1.5 mattst88, NOT member of graphics team claims owner ship on the package without consulting me, or anyone from graphics@ i'm aware of. then he version bumps it to latest, which was okay'ish except the Makefile was not reviewed at all in files/ directory and most of the -D macros were either wrong, or just obsolete. at this point we had pngcrush package of non-subtimal quality with questionable maintainership. notice that graphics is still in the metadata.xml to which i'm still part of. then as member of base-system, I bump libpng and want to push something new for the distribution. pngcrush, the leaf package of graphics@ gets in the way. then I sent a message to mattst88 in Freenode what he wants to do with the situation. never got a reply. masked the package. what does this has to with qa@ team? well, they might be intrested in the non-subtimal commit which skipped the Makefile review, also known as "blind commit" -- otherwise it's none of their business. so no, you don't get to use this as anykind of weapon against me or anyone else involved. - Samuli
