On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 20:48 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > Let's do this the other way around and be react based on facts and not
> > > speculations.
> > > Let's change the policy for a year for selected packages as I
> > > outlined, monitor bugs and after a year see response times, affected
> > > users and if downstream patches are accumulated. Then we can decide if
> > > we need to patch upstream packages.
> > > If we need to patch upstream package anyway, not follow upstream
> > > policy and not accepting input for various of permutations and
> > > architecture from all users, this discussion is nearly void.
> > >
> >
> > ...and for how long did you exactly ignore the standing policy that
> > suddenly we need a new testing period? How about we do the opposite
> > and you prove a *single* bug found downstream using this method so far?
> >
> > Because so far this discussion is not much different than "let's make
> > the ebuild fail for some values of ${RANDOM}, and add extra values when
> > users complain". Though the variant with random has probably a greater
> > chance of failing when *actual* security issues happen.
>
> OK, back to personal discussion, unfortunately you question this in
> this principal thread.
>
> Personal response:
> In all my years in Gentoo, I've never thought the maintainer lose his
> judgement of how to maintain a package as long as the he/she provide a
> great service to users.
> I've never thought or read this (and other) paragraph as a strict
> white and black nor the holy bible , but a suggestion of how to
> provide a great service to user with the least overhead to maintainer,
> the best practice, the common case.
> I believe there was no complains from users about these packages, on
> the opposite users report issues and are happy when resolved after
> proper investigation.
> I guess something had changed recently in Gentoo in which QA try to
> take the maintainer judgement try to enforce a black and white
> perspective and without looking at bug history and other sources.
> I believe this is a regression and not a progression, I was very
> disappointed to see this new side of Gentoo in which common sense for
> a specific case cannot be discussed individually, nor that a fixed bug
> is hijacked to discuss a principal issue without opening a separate
> formal QA request to discuss properly, address some of the argument
> raised by fellow developers and the reaction of requesting to ban
> developers without any mature discussion. As you can see this in this
> thread is not black and white.
> I should point out *once again* that: a. nobody requested banning developers, b. Bugzilla access suspension was requested because of your hostility in closing the bug and not the technical issue in question -- or in other words, to prevent you from closing the bug again. However, if you continue spreading harmful misinformation about my intentions in attempt to prove your point in technical matter, then I believe we have much more serious problem to address here. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
