On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 02/19/2015 10:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On Thursday 19 February 2015 10:07:30 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 02/19/2015 09:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: >>>> On 02/19/15 06:10, Mike Gilbert wrote: What saddens me the most >>>> is that these pointless threads are becoming sort of a habit >>>> not because the reporter is really offended by the original >>>> action, but because he/she uses that to prove that QA is dying, >>>> Gentoo is a zombie, cvs sucks and elephants could fly. >>>
++ >>> What is more relevant is how that is being followed up by others >>> afterwards. "Ok, I did a mistake, will remember to check >>> maintainer more closely before bumping a package that is new to >>> me and I'm not familiar enough with to know it is in Herd X" >>> would be a perfectly acceptable answer. ++ >>> >> >> Trivial python package gets bumped. OMG TEH END OF TAH WORLD. > ++ > > The maintainer is the one that is supposed to be responsible for the > package, and even a trivial bump can affect the workflow e.g. with > testing the package in overlay before bringing it into the tree. Maybe > the maintainer knew of some issues with the new version that needed to > be sorted out the bug, or even upcoming security issues where a person > that is not the maintainer would not have been invited into a > RESTRICTED bug for instance. So yes, that kind of behaviour can be > damaging in a broader scope. ++ > >> I'd appreciate it if we could get a more community thingy going ++ > > I agree on this, although community thingy doesn't mean we always have > to agree on issues, just that we need to respect each other enough to > discuss them in a civil manner, and maybe even get along and have fun > in the process. ++ Devs should be communicating with maintainers when they touch their packages. Even for large tree-wide changes this should happen, though in that case it makes more sense to just communicate the change on -dev (or -dev-announce if important enough), and not talk to every maintainer individually. This is the way things are supposed to work and we should be following it. That said, when there is a breach of protocol it isn't always the end of the world, and we don't need to react like it is. I'd suggest talking about it directly before going to lists/comrel/QA/council/etc. If a problem is persistent we can of course deal with it. -- Rich
