https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/d5be93dc7767f2256041eb2cb54b8b38 My first concern is the comment demanding "real" arguments. It is definitely sarcasm, especially to me personally given the tone of the rest of the message, and I don't appreciate it. My second concern is the insinuation that by not posting this on gentoo-dev I was trying to "sneak it in". That is definitely not appreciated since g-p-d is open to all just like any other list. All of our development is open and there is no room for insinuations like this.
(proctors people do not have the right to see comrel restricted bugs)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as a personal attack. As for your first concern, I didn't mean it as sarcasm. I should've probably said 'technical arguments' instead. I'm sorry if the rest of the paragraph didn't give sufficient context. As for your second concern, I didn't mean to attack you personally. I have to admit that I was angry when I discovered that the change in long-standing QA policy is being sent to a mailing list for package manager development rather than the global development discussion list. However, I only meant to attack this mistake, not the person behind it. I have to disagree that 'any other list' is valid here. Posting to the wrong list can (and will) result in people who are directly affected by it missing it. This is a real problem. For example, if I changed underscores to hyphens in PYTHON_TARGETS after sending the RFC to gentoo-python@, many developers (possibly including yourself) would not consider this fine.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) > I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as a personal attack. > > As for your first concern, I didn't mean it as sarcasm. I should've > probably said 'technical arguments' instead. I'm sorry if the rest of the > paragraph didn't give sufficient context. Well, the problem here is that defining a technical argument is going to be hard either way. I'll go back to the list for that part though. > As for your second concern, I didn't mean to attack you personally. I have > to admit that I was angry when I discovered that the change in long-standing > QA policy is being sent to a mailing list for package manager development > rather than the global development discussion list. However, I only meant > to attack this mistake, not the person behind it. Being angry isn't the problem; saying things that come off as personal attacks is a separate issue. I don't see a way to interpret your wording as anything besides a personal attack. I'll quote here. > So why do you believe we should introduce this regression? And why are > you trying to sneak it past most of the developers via gentoo-portage- > dev instead of gentoo-dev? Proctors: If this can be interpreted as anything other than a personal attack, feel free to close this bug. I'll put it in your hands. :-) Whether or not this is a qa policy is debatable. I haven't seen a written qa policy about this, just a patch inside the package manager code (not in the repo metadata qa checks) that forces it. If there is a qa policy for it, take that back to the list and cite it there. When I was speaking with floppym about this issue yesterday, he suggested sending it to the places I sent it to. > I have to disagree that 'any other list' is valid here. Posting to the > wrong list can (and will) result in people who are directly affected by it > missing it. This is a real problem. For example, if I changed underscores > to hyphens in PYTHON_TARGETS after sending the RFC to gentoo-python@, many > developers (possibly including yourself) would not consider this fine. Your example is different, because that was suggested as a qa policy to begin with. if you look at the history of this issue, I don't think it ever was an official qa policy to not put libtool files or static libs in /lib*. Like I said, if it was, show me on the list.
Proctors: I wanted to take a few hours before I officially state that I'm ok or not with mgorny's response. My answer to this is I am not for a couple of reasons. He was aware of the irc conversation that lead to this patch and he was aware I was advised to post to gentoo-portage-dev and copy qa. The other issue involved here is I was just following the procedures for requesting a change to portage. If this had been a check in gentoo.git, sure, I would have sent it to gentoo-dev and qa, but either way qa would have been copied.
Making bug public per policy and williamh's ok.
(In reply to William Hubbs from comment #4) > He was aware of the irc conversation that lead to this patch > and he was aware I was advised to post to gentoo-portage-dev and copy > qa. This isn't true and I don't understand why you claim to know what I've seen or not. Yes, I've seen part of this conversation. This doesn't mean I had to read it all. > The other issue involved here is I was just following the procedures for > requesting a change to portage. > > If this had been a check in gentoo.git, sure, I would have sent it to > gentoo-dev and qa, but either way qa would have been copied. This check was present for many years, and had major impact on ebuilds and eclasses (notably, the gen_usr_ldscript function).
Honestly, I don't think any of this argument/discussion/etc really helps much. If the two of you work things out and williamh wants to cancel this, that is of course fine. Beyond that really the only thing Proctors is going to look at (imo) is the original post itself, minus context for the most part, because Proctors is just about how we communicate on lists/etc. We're not going to adjudicate QA policy or what should be installed where or anything like that. To use an example, if somebody goes changing an eclass without posting about it on -dev first, that isn't really in our jurisdiction. On the other hand if a flamewar results from this, the manner in which frustrations are expressed might be. By all means open another bug to track the actual change if appropriate, or discuss reasonably in private or on a list that seems reasonable. While I'm speaking for myself only I doubt Proctors is going to get involved in a dispute about whether -portage-dev vs -dev or a crosspost is the right place to discuss something like this. I mean, if something is grossly off-topic sure, but if you polled 5 devs on something this nuanced you're going to get 7 answers...
Rich, all I'm interested in on this bug is the original message. I added the comment about mgorny being aware of the irc conversation to back up my position more and show that he wasn't blindsided awhen I posted this to -portage-dev. The thing I'm concerned about here isn't where it should have been posted, but the accusatory / abusive tone in the message I linked in the first comment.
Created attachment 594250 [details] gentoo-dev.log RRich, I am attaching this log from gentoo-dev as evidence that mgorny was aware of the irc conversation leading up to the posting of this patch. The UTC offset is -5. You will see that mgorny was active on the channel when floppym and I were discussing it. Thanks, William
This is getting ridiculous! Could you please stop insinuating that I have read more than I have read? Just because I have read part of the conversation and pointed out my attitude towards the change doesn't mean I have read every single message you wrote before. I'm usually kinda busy, you know.
