On 08/07/14 17:18, Maxim Koltsov wrote: > > > > 2014-07-08 16:10 GMT+04:00 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org > <mailto:ri...@gentoo.org>>: > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org > <mailto:mgo...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > > > The games team believes that they're binding. In fact, I recall > one of > > the team members remarking explicitly that they're going to alter > > ebuilds that were committed without their approval. > > > > In fact, they did remove ebuilds from the tree in the past for this > > reason [1]. > > > > > > [1]:http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/games-strategy/openxcom/?hideattic=0 > > This was 3 weeks ago, so certainly relevant. Was this removal by > mutual agreement (ie the games team and maksbotan ? > > Rich > > > No, I was not notified beforehand (or failed to recieve such > notification, it does not matter now). This was a proxied commit, I > did a usual check of the ebuild and found no problems. I admit that > the ebuild was not-so-compliant to games herd rules, though. Still, > immediate removal without notification and/or discussion did annoy me. > BTW, I fail to see the reason of move to games-engines, but that's > another issue. > > -- > Regards, Maxim.
Did you get the ebuild reviewed and accepted for committing at #gentoo-games as per existing guidelines[1]? If you didn't, then you propably managed to annoy them first, and the outcome was expected (as in, the missing work was done for you, with best intentions) I've never had any issues with getting games ebuilds reviewed at #gentoo-games and I've committed dozen(s) of games to tree. I've been on the channel, almost always I'm online, I haven't seen people getting ignored there who have proper initial work done first (if the ebuild is in a shape you'd have to rewrite every second line, you might get ignored, and I find that to be reasonable, since we are all volunteers, afterall) [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/i-wanna-be-in-the-games-herd.html And some personal thoughts about the initial proposal... I don't care about the suggestion 3. in mgorny's proposal at all, but 1. and 2. should definately stay as is. Since games ebuilds are low maintenance, there is no intrest in getting dozens of 'eclass porting bugs', which is why inheriting games last prevents future breakage as well as ensure the eclasses exported phases are respected. It seems to me like people aren't making the effort of joining to the team and meeting the high quality ebuild syntax they've kept up... - Samuli
