| 1 |
I'm going to basically reply with my normal QA rant. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
1) QA is important to the overall health of Gentoo. People will not |
| 4 |
use broken shit. |
| 5 |
2) QA should be straightforward. If a developer need to do X to |
| 6 |
assure quality it should be fairly obvious why X is required. It |
| 7 |
should be clear where to go for help. |
| 8 |
2a) A developer should not get chewed out for asking for assistance |
| 9 |
or questioning policies. |
| 10 |
3) If a QA policy is not straightforward; developers will not follow it. |
| 11 |
4) QA should not be a road-block to most developers. If you make |
| 12 |
development harder people will often stop working on development. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think a number of developers understand why QA exists, why they |
| 15 |
should test packages, run repoman, and other policies that often get |
| 16 |
followed. Examining policies that are ignored will likely lead to a |
| 17 |
lack of understanding, documentation, or just bloat in policy. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In general I hate talking about 'bad' QA versus 'good' QA because no |
| 20 |
one on the QA team ever talked about measurement. QA is 'bad' when |
| 21 |
some new person heads up the team and (s)he is going to 'clean up QA' |
| 22 |
by instituting these new policies. None of the policies have any kind |
| 23 |
of measurement attached so there is no real way to see if the new |
| 24 |
policies are effective. Perhaps this sort of thing is 'too corporate' |
| 25 |
and not possible in a volunteer project (I happen to think otherwise.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-A |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 30 |
> On 01/31/2011 07:04 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>>> 2. I don't think it makes sense for QA to discipline developers |
| 33 |
>>> permanently in these cases. They should suspend access pending Devrel |
| 34 |
>>> resolution of the issue. Devrel should of course strongly consider |
| 35 |
>>> the input of QA. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> That should be anyone's input, really. If a Gentoo Linux user finds a |
| 38 |
>> nasty `rm -rf /' timebomb, I suppose he could point that out to infra |
| 39 |
>> directly. And it's infra that suspends access, by the way. And devrel |
| 40 |
>> should be the intermediate between developers. And QA "aims to keep the |
| 41 |
>> portage tree in a consistent state"[1]. Wait, everyone is already in |
| 42 |
>> place? |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Actually recruiters can also suspend commit access and DevRel lead has |
| 46 |
> used that to safe guard the tree in the past. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Regards, |
| 49 |
> Petteri |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> |
Archives