On 23:45 Thu 05 Sep , Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:47 PM Thomas Deutschmann <whi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On 2019-09-05 22:16, Michał Górny wrote: > > >> But as per the way the dev manual is written, he arguably *is* > > >> following policy. > > >> > > >> Stop taking the line of assuming he's trying to be belligerent. > > > > > > He says explicitly that he is against fixing devmanual because he likes > > > the way he can abuse it right now. > > > > You are the only one adding _abuse_ here. Stop that, thanks. When I > > replied to your mail I was just asking... nothing more. I don't > > understand why you are reading so much into it. > > The devmanual o clearly indicates that an email to gentoo-dev is > strongly preferred. I don't see any reason why tupone could not have > done this. > > You seem to be trying to take this opportunity to prove some loosely > related point. > > > But yes, I like the current exception for "per-package" eclasses like I > > am concerned that a review requirement would cause a significant delay: > > > > Back to my example, imagine we would move pkg_config to new mysql > > eclass. If we would bump mysql/percona-server/mariadb package and will > > receive bug reports later because upstream changed something causing > > pkg_config to fail we would now have to propose a patch, wait 48 > > hours... i.e. package would be broken for ~72 hours just because of a > > policy I don't reject in general (yes, I like reviews) but where I think > > exceptions must be possible. > > This argument is stupid. If you need to push a critical bug fix, then > do it. Nobody will fault you for it. > > This clearly does not apply to ada.eclass. > I am going just to explain the reason why I did not ask ml about review the first time. 1) ada.eclass is copied from python-single-r1 eclass with s/PYTHON/ADA/ and removing pieces that I don't need 2) The eclass is only for packages that I mantains exclusively and they are not such a great number
The eclass is an effort to avoid in the future the same problems raised from qa-check All comes from a suggestion to use USE_EXPAND for gnat_2016 gnat_2017 ... My opinion is that the ml review should be mandatory only for new eclasses that are meant to be used by all the tree or by a great number of packages (>= 100 ?) However, as stated in the email I reverted my changes and add the eclass to the ml. Then, what a review means, when it is approved or denied, I will try to learn Alfredo
