On 09. 02. 21 17:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On 09. 02. 21 1:54, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>> On 08. 02. 21 20:38, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>>> Robbie Harwood <rharwood(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>>>> Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>> but doing this downstream only was never my intention. I am the
>>> change owner.
>>
>> You have already replied to one of the PRs
>>
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-requests-gssapi/pull-request/1
>> to comment that it couldn't be merged. It follows the
>> downstream-only sed approach, you'll note.
>
> I have commented this PR but I have not even seen the diff yet. If
> I've seen it, I'd ask whether it can be proposed upstream as well.
> I'd ask that whether or not it is applied as a sed or patch (or any
> other way).
>
> Also note that it is a Pull Request, not a provenpackager mass pushing
> changes.
Indeed, one step closer to doing this right :)
To doing what right? If I am doing something wrong, tell me how exactly and what
am I doing. So far you only accused me of doing something I am not doing.
> The PR is actually driven by a RHEL 9 bugzilla because the
python3-mock package
> is marked as unwanted in
https://github.com/minimization/content-resolver-input
This continues to be Fedora, not RHEL. I don't think python3-mock
should stay, but it's not justification *for Fedora*.
Yes. And I've told you that my Fedora change has not caused the Pull Request
you've seen.
> As I've already said in my first reply to you in January:
>
>> Disclaimer: The package is listed as unwanted in ELN (so the RHEL
>> maintainers might get some internal spam about dropping the
>> dependency). If they will be interested, I might end up sending a
>> Fedora PR for such packages.
>
> Please stop accusing me of ill intention.
To my knowledge, I have only stated facts. To be clear, I do not
believe you have ill intention - I believe we disagree, and aren't
communicating well.
I believe we more or less agree about how things should be done.
I believe we don't agree about the reality thou. I don't know why.
You have stated speculations, not facts.
1) "you're going to ProvenPackager in a couple lines of sed to all (affected)
specfiles"
I am not.
2) "You're proposing changing many packages"
I am not.
3) "Turns out this is indeed what they meant." (about (1) and possibly (2))
It is not.
Note that in your first email, the speculations seemed like a misunderstanding
(there was even an "I hope I have misunderstood"). But recently you switched
directly to false accusations. I don't know why you do this, or what have I done
to deserve this treatment, but let me be absolutely clear:
I am not conducting the stuff you accuse me off. I realize that sometimes people
make errors in judgement but I've already told you this once and you keep saying
otherwise. Please stop.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok