1 |
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 12:40, Sean P. Kane wrote: |
2 |
> All this |
3 |
> does is point out the real lesson to be learned here. Gentoo may be |
4 |
> "cutting-edge", but the stability problems MUST be fixed, expecially in |
5 |
> Portafge, because if it breaks, it can leave a system in a very |
6 |
> difficult to recover state. |
7 |
|
8 |
We actually have a good QA procedure in place for Portage. The problem |
9 |
was caused by a senior developer doing things that he shouldn't and not |
10 |
following this procedure. |
11 |
|
12 |
Again, I don't want to make this person feel worse than he already does |
13 |
(and he does feel bad about his error in judgement.) I sharing this info |
14 |
for the sole purpose of letting everyone know that normally this problem |
15 |
would have been caught way before it hit end-users, and that we *do* |
16 |
have a QA procedure in place for Portage. |
17 |
|
18 |
Today, I've made extra sure that all our devs are very clear on the |
19 |
rules regarding new Portage releases. I've done what's necessary to help |
20 |
ensure that issues like this are avoided in the future. I am now going |
21 |
to incorporate these details regarding Portage QA into our official |
22 |
policy documentation on the Web site so that future developers will do |
23 |
the right thing too. |
24 |
|
25 |
Sincerely, |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Daniel Robbins |
29 |
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux |
30 |
http://www.gentoo.org |