1 |
DJ Cozatt posted on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:46:38 -0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339485 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Is a discussion/flame about the report upstream qa messages. |
6 |
> Help me out here guys and weigh in. (dons flame suit) |
7 |
|
8 |
FWIW, glad to see someone dealing with those QA warnings, but one picks |
9 |
their battles based on time and skillset available, and that's one I've |
10 |
deliberately chosen to ignore. |
11 |
|
12 |
My feeling is, the gentoo maintainers obviously see the warnings when |
13 |
they test for version bumps, etc, so they know about them. Since they |
14 |
already do know about them, it does nothing but irritate them to file |
15 |
bugs about them, especially when one doesn't really have the coding |
16 |
skills to help much, and the package in general remains working. |
17 |
Meanwhile I've picked the upstreams I'm involved with and try not to |
18 |
think too much about the others, as there simply isn't time for all of |
19 |
them. |
20 |
|
21 |
So mostly I just ignore the QA warnings unless something actually breaks, |
22 |
figuring the gentoo folks already know about them, and unless it's on the |
23 |
list of upstreams I'm already involved with or something is really |
24 |
broken, given I don't generally have the skills to provide a fix in any |
25 |
case, it simply falls off the bottom of my priority scale. |
26 |
|
27 |
That said, why are the QA notices there if the general user isn't |
28 |
equipped to deal with them? Remove them? |
29 |
|
30 |
I'd say no. At a minimum, they serve a shaming function. Ideally, the |
31 |
issues would be fixed right away, most ideally in testing, before the |
32 |
package is ever unmasked in-tree, but if that doesn't happen, and in the |
33 |
real world it obviously doesn't all the time or we'd not be seeing the |
34 |
warnings (devs have time issues too), the warnings do serve as a gentle |
35 |
prod and reminder that there are issues that need dealt with. And over |
36 |
time, hopefully, the brown-bag (embarrassment, the reference is to |
37 |
someone so embarrassed that they wish to cover their head with a bag so |
38 |
as to remain anonymous) factor of having so many warnings in one's |
39 |
packages gets big enough to bump them on a devs priority list, and they |
40 |
get fixed. If those warnings were to disappear except when activated by |
41 |
some developer flag, the brown-bag factor would be far lower, and perhaps |
42 |
fewer of them would be fixed. |
43 |
|
44 |
I believe that shaming function is a big part of why those QA warnings |
45 |
are there in the first place. Removing them is thus not a good idea. |
46 |
|
47 |
Plus, they motivate users (like you) who DO have the skills and time to |
48 |
help out, occasionally. That's not a bad thing. =:^) Certainly not, for |
49 |
an all-volunteer distro that's chronically understaffed. =:^\ |
50 |
|
51 |
But as I said, for me, I pick my battles, and that's not one I've picked. |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
55 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
56 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |