On 2014-12-10 10:42, Dominig ar Foll (Intel OTC) wrote: > Hello, > > I see today in Gerrit a patch pushed in an unacceptable way and I would > like to see that type of behaviour changed. > I speak about the review > https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/#/c/31701/ > > The push is justified on the comment : > > "Patch Set 3: > As of now, I feel adding these credentials here is the right way to do > because: > We want kdbus to be part of official images, so it is not going to > be optional, although we may disable kdbus at boot time by default. > Until we enable sysusers feature of systemd we'd like to avoid > adding and removing users with useradd/userdel." > > The "We want Kdbus ..." is not an agreed general feature but can only > be, as today, a valid profile specific request. > So the patch as it is shall be rejected :-(
Please take a look at the patch - it's about adding system users to the system, and while Łukasz quoted kdbus - issue is fairly generic. > In order to get it in, the same person pushed it, verified it, and > accept it in less than 2 hours of working day time in Europe where are > located the Common reviewers. > Sorry but that is not acceptable. > > 1) Same person submitting, verifying and accepting a patch (even simple) > is not in line with Tizen review model, > 2) A decent time should be left for reviewer to voice their concerns. > Typical 24h to cover multiple time zones. > 3) Architecture change shall be agreed by architecture team to get in > Common. > > So please do not force changes any more. > In that specific case, if you need Kdbus in a profile before than it is > agree to be generalised in Common, please make an agreement with Common > to enable it with a clean model. As for kdbus - it's been agreed 3.0 feature before Tizen:Common, and Generic were established. Heck, it's even on official wiki page so please tell me why we do have to agree things that were already accepted? https://wiki.tizen.org/wiki/Tizen_3.0 > In that specific case the use of a "%bcond_with kdbus" seems a viable > model. Is it? Sorry, but in this case is introducing complexity for not good reason. > Please sync with Common RE (Stéphane) to see if that model would work > for all of us. > > Please accept my apologies for having to be a bit rude. I would appreciate if you wouldn't try to use politics to address technical problems. Cheers, -- Karol Lewandowski, Samsung R&D Institute Poland _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.tizen.org https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
