> -----Original Message----- > From: Dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karol > Lewandowski > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:28 AM > To: Dominig ar Foll (Intel OTC); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Dev] Forcing non agreed architecture changes is not acceptable. > > 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?
NO! It is *not* an agreed on 3.0 feature! I have been adamant on this issue. Until *all* the security model issues are addressed kbdus cannot be considered. > 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
