[Fwd: Re: [kugelfang@gentoo.org: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86]]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[Fwd: Re: [kugelfang@gentoo.org: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86]]

Alec Warner-2
I had to get robin to fix my subscription, I figured it was a wee bit jank.

here is my message.

So to address Chris's comment on the developer list.

I don't think anyone really disagrees with the decision on a whole.
I really can't think of someone arguing that alpha_beta_pre_rc makes a
great version, honestly.  I think some people expect specific sequences
of suffixes to be ok.

Problems many have are:

As you stated this issue has been around a while, people know about it,
maintainers know about it, there has been discussion about it.  My
question is, why act in what many deem as an 'emergency action'.  That
is how people perceive this.  The Council is granted authority to make
decisions with limited members, when those decisions are deemed
'necessary'.  Necessity is a judgement call.  You *will* get people
jumping down your throat because most people don't deem this issue
necessary for an 'emergency decisions that affects the whole tree'.

You told people to change their ebuilds but at first failed to provide
examples of what they could use.  Many people turned to the multiple
suffixes approach because there was no 'good' way to do the versioning
in the normal manner.  Some maintainers probably would have thought it
nice had you provided some examples of what they could use instead.  I
think this is a stretch myself (they are big boys and they can ask
others on their own) but maybe some maintainers have different expectations.

What I would have expected in a situation like this is:

'Members of the Council met today to discuss version schemes within the
tree; particularly chaining suffixes such as "alpha1_pre2_rc4" and
similar schemes that have recently become more prevalant within the
tree.  The Cuncil requires that new ebuilds entering the tree do not use
this new suffix chaining.  Existing ebuilds may be revision-bumped (-rX)
but new ebuilds should use a different scheme.  If as a maintainer you
are unsure of what to name your ebuild at that point, please consult
other developers or preferably ask on the gentoo-dev mailing list.  This
 topic will be on the agenda for the next council meeting where Council
members will discuss feedback on the issue and make a more permanant

A couple of things this doesn't do:

It doesn't force renames for all current ebuilds, things are
grandfathered in.  This is mostly to protect our users from needless
recompiling which, by your decree, you have probably subjected them to.

It doesn't force developers to rush.  It lets developers to respond in a
timely manner instead of all at once.  People feel you rushed, some
people weren't paying attention, some people have no idea why this
needed to be done *now* as opposed to *in a week or two*.

Note, that this mail is no way meant to be 'whining about the council'.
 I'm trying offer ways you can improve in the future and I'm trying to
make it clear why some people feel the need to should 'wtf'.  If you
think this was all OK and there was nothing wrong with what you did,
then I myself am worried.  I hope this mail makes it clear why some
people are not OK with how this occured.


The Google GoatMan