On 12/08/2017 05:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:59:20AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> >> On 12/08/2017 10:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >>> 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. I wholeheartedly agree with Zbyszek here. Well said. -- Kalev _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
