On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500 "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zeroch...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old > > versions sink all your time really stops progress to a dead halt. > > > > Your logic isn't flawed here, it's entirely missing. If version Y is > stable on all arches but one, and that version is still using version > X that doesn't affect any of the other arches at all. Can this be proven? Why are maintainers like WilliamH upset about this? Reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90063 > If the maintainer doesn't wish to support version X any longer then > they can close bugs wontfix. +1, but what about stabilization bugs that block other bugs? > Removing the last stable version on an arch from the tree is against > policy. The QA policy meant to override this; to avoid confusion, I mean including the proper workflow involved in this. But this has raised concerns on IRC today, as it was made clear what the reasons are that I was asking for; it's good that we do a new vote on this to properly reflect what we really intend, rather than some poor voting that went through a quick vote and didn't take everything in consideration. > >> Not the QA team's actions. YOURS. YOUR actions and responses in > >> this thread. And the fact that the QA team allows you to continue > >> to be on it, despite your obvious lack of interest in ACTUALLY > >> having quality assurance. My actions are affected by it because I > >> have to continue to attempt to discuss the issue with others who > >> actually give a shit, and you just swoop in and say no, that > >> absolutely is unacceptable as a solution > > > > The policy is made by the QA team; you are attempting to object to > > the policy, therefore this is the QA team's action. This is their > > action. > > Please don't claim you speak for the QA team when in fact, you have > not discussed it with any of us, We did discuss this QA policy during the QA meeting. > and the QA lead told you to cool it on irc hours ago. That was minutes ago, you are replying to is written before that; furthermore, I believe things are cool. Why do you think otherwise? > You are speaking for yourself here and no one else. I'm quoting QA team policy, agreed on by at least 8 individuals; that policy can be read at the following URL: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies If you still think so, can you show me where I did speak for myself? > There is NO policy that allows for dropping a stable ebuild without > masks, discussion, and significant passage of time. > > > It is rather that I ask question to clarify what you are trying to > > say as to get more useful and meaningful responses; but what I > > receive in return is "pure and utter bullshit" on a "brick wall", > > maybe someone else would say "no" here but if you take a closer > > look this as well as the previous mail contains multiple questions > > for you. > > > > These questions show interest in assuring quality here; it's > > actually what makes up for a defensive style of discussion, making > > sure that we keep our quality as opposed to applying the first > > interesting solution that we come across. If you deem the QA team's > > policy doesn't do that, and that it has a detriment in quality; can > > you please let us know why? > > > > Again, there is no policy that allows you to drop a stable package on > an arch without a whole lot of things that I definitely never say > happen. Honestly, if I even knew what you two were discussing in > specific I'd likely be reverting the stupid drop instead of pointing > out things in this thread which is wasting my time, and everyone > else's. Indeed, there isn't; where did I say there is? Now that it has been said so on IRC, I see it can be misinterpreted. > >> (even though it doesn't affect me!) because this page here says > >> that it can't > >> - we can change that definition if you'd like. Instead of the line > >> saying: > >> > >> The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions > >> which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs. > >> > >> Would changing it to read > >> > >> The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions > >> which are not for use on unlisted archs. > >> > >> Would that make it acceptable? > > > > Feel free to propose that to the QA team and / or the Gentoo > > Council. > > No changes are required. Everyone with 2 brain cells knows that -* > means "cannot work on other arches". Things like binary packages, etc. And thus -* is not a solution to this thread. > Now, before you continue "discussing" this issue here on the list, > perhaps you should turn around and talk to the QA team about what > needs changed and discussed. +1 -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
