On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:59:20AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 10:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:14:35AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 12/07/2017 06:13 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:31 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> What do I have to do to stop random people > >>>> from making random changes to packages I maintain? > >>>> > >>>> How do people get this type of permission? > >>>> > >>>> Case in point; > >>>> > >>>> commit 358a8fff974f0e124527a3281c90fa04cb7c7a7f (HEAD -> master, > >>>> origin/master, origin/HEAD) > >>>> Author: Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Date: Tue Nov 7 16:31:21 2017 +0100 > >>>> > >>>> Remove old crufty coreutils requires > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> commit 66851ea12370a786844262620a40b0a2ac9632ce > >>>> Author: Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Date: Tue Nov 7 16:31:14 2017 +0100 > >>>> > >>>> systemd-units -> systemd > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> Where committed to the master branch and not to any other > >>>> branch make the maintenance of those branches a pain > >>>> because I can no longer cherry-pick between branches. > >>>> I have to make multiple commits to multiple branches > >>>> which sucks... Something random people do not understand! > >>>> > >>>> There is a pull mechanism... Why was that not used?? > >>>> > >>>> Maintaining the stability of packages is hard enough > >>>> esp packages everybody uses... but that stability > >>>> goes out the window when random people allowed to > >>>> make random changes... > >>>> > >>>> Who are these super humans, how do they become > >>>> super humans and why aren't they required to > >>>> use the pull mechanism?? > >>> > >>> I don't agree with you, you may contact the super human and ask him why > >>> ? you may revert the commit . > >> Overhead that is simply not needed if the maintainer was consulted first. > > > > How would the overhead be lower? Instead of a single clean commit that > > does what needs to be done you want the person doing this cleanup on a > > hundred packages to send you a special message and wait while you make > > the decision whether to allow a three line change or not? Please explain. > Who determines "needs to be done" Shouldn't the owner of the package be in > on the determination, with silents being acceptance after a certain amount > of time? I think so. This is completely infeasible to contact each maintainer individually when doing massive changes. The policy specifies that the mass change should be pre-announced, discussed, and announced on the mailing list. This procedure was followed, the changes are simple and correct. > Yes to your second question... For one reason... maintaining stability. > You give people the ability to change anything and everything they > want w/out any review... that is called instability... No, those changes don't have any effect on the way that your package operates, they just change the reference from an obsolete name to one that actually exists. Without such changes we would have more and more obsolete cruft in packages. It's great that somebody is willing to spend their time keeping the distro tidy. Change, if done carefully, does not mean instability. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
