On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:48 AM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-09-28 at 17:36 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > I know I'm going to regret asking this... but I've prepared a change to > > the Portage output format and I think it asks for a wider discussion > > than internally in Portage team. > > As I suspected, I truly regret sending this mail. I'm dangerously close > to burning out, so I'm going to retract these patches. When you decide > what you want and make patches for it, feel free to send them to > Portage.
Keep in mind that while distributing patches and soliciting comments is a good practice, I don't believe any of our policies REQUIRE that you: 1. Reply to anybody who comments. 2. Address any comments. 3. Wait until anybody (let alone everybody) agrees before proceeding. I think that we sometimes let the requirement to communicate somehow stifle the desire to get things done. While I don't recommend it, you can technically satisfy any communications requirements by posting your patch and literally never checking your email before committing it. Obviously if you mess something up in doing so you'll look dumb, but it isn't intended to be a bureaucratic requirement. I suggest just skimming the comments to see if there is anything that seems like a good idea, then implementing those ideas (which you'll probably want to do anyway), and ignore the rest without comment. If somebody has a problem with what you're doing, the onus is on them to go find somebody to complain to in order to stop you. If you're the maintainer then you don't need permission to commit. In my experience the Council is fairly resistant to requests to meddle for things that aren't super-critical, so I'd be shocked if they didn't just ack and dismiss any request to bikeshed exactly what prefix your elog output uses. Open to contrary opinions, but IMO I think maintainers perceive that the distro is more consensus-driven than it actually is. You don't have to "win" the email battle. -- Rich
