On 12/08/2017 12:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:01 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> Then on the other hand I get these pull-requests that >> work sooooo well! >> >> So I just don't understand why for non-massive changes >> why is it not required to go through the pull-request >> process? > > There is a pedestrian reason, which is that the pull request system is > very *new*. It's only been there a couple of months. So it's not > surprising that all existing policies haven't been rewritten around it. Fair enough... It is a very good system. > > But there are also the practical reasons others have given several > times but you have just ignored in your multiple replies. Put yourself > in the shoes of a provenpackager who needs to make corresponding > changes to, say, 50 packages. All those changes need to go through > before an important modernization/cleanup to another package can be > completed, for instance. > > Now you file 50 pull requests. And wait. And wait. And wait... Guilty as charged... :-) This is a massive change... I do get that.. > > How long will it be before you can get the modernization/cleanup > finished? You're going to be sitting there waiting for 50 people to > respond to pull requests, and it's a racing certainty at least one of > them just *won't*. In the mean time you'll be working on other things, > and losing track. It just makes it much harder to get important stuff > done. Fedora is a *distribution*, and a large part of being a > distribution is some level of consistency in the way we provide > software to people. It's *important* that we have a mechanism by which > we can make a reasonable cut at having multiple packages, maintained by > different people, do things the same way - and have the packages > changed promptly when those policies change. > > I wouldn't say this is an open-and-shut case, there are reasonable > arguments in favor of using the PR process for changes, sometimes or > always. But I agree with other folks that you're not doing yourself any > favours by acting as if this policy is clearly insane and you're the > only sane person in the room, and as if there had been some sort of > major controversy or disaster when there hasn't. Sane person?? You are actually calling me a sane person!?? That's a first... ;-) I just think its odd to have so many people that can changes so much without any boundaries... I just didn't realize that was the case. > Someone fixed up some > dependencies in your package which you should've fixed yourself years > ago. That's the sum total of what happened. Your git complaints don't > seem to make sense to anyone else and you've refused to explain exactly > what this special workflow you have is despite more than one person > specifically asking you. This time... but there has been other changes... > > Important note: I'm a proven packager. I make changes to other packages > when I judge that it's appropriate to do so, under the policy. > I think making these single changes via the PR system would be the best policy. steved. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
