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. 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. So for my understanding this is not about 'fixing' devmanual. It's about *changing* devmanual which I *just* pointed out. But whoever will propose changing devmanual should support such a change because he/she will probably have to argue for that change. Something I cannot do when I like status quo like I do currently or have concerns. -- Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
