On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:29 AM Thomas Deutschmann <whi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 2021-01-08 17:03, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > I strongly object to you pushing this patch as-is. There have been > > plenty of non-technical objections, including from the eclass > > maintainer. > > The eclass maintainer has disqualified himself going into a technical > debate with saying > > > So, over my dead commit access. > > in his first posting. > > This is a technical mailing list. Currently, acct-* stuff is breaking > stuff. Nobody has challenged this yet. > > Now I proposed a way how to unbreak stuff. > > Please tell me why we should keep broken stuff for non-technical reason > and cause harm for those who are affected? > > It's not like we cannot address the other stuff later. It's about > getting the fix down to users who are currently affected by this. So why > take hostage when some user(s) ignore the problem for more than a year > and show that they are not interested in collaboration to find a > solution for a technical problem they created despite warnings before > this went live? > > Of course, if you are not affected by this problem it is very easy to > relax and sit back. You have all the time in the world... but when you > are affected by this at large scale it is not that funny anymore.
Let me put it this way: if you push this without agreement from the maintainer, QA, or council, you can probably expect a swift revert.
