| 1 |
El lun, 12-05-2014 a las 21:05 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 05/10/2014 08:12 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
> > El sáb, 10-05-2014 a las 17:50 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió: |
| 4 |
> > [...] |
| 5 |
> >> As for build failures; that boils down to either the maintainer fixing |
| 6 |
> >> it as it is their problem, treecleaners cleaning it (but even they have |
| 7 |
> >> a long backlog) or someone that is interested to fix it. But in no way |
| 8 |
> >> it is QA's problem; as our task is Quality Assurance, which doesn't* |
| 9 |
> >> imply fixing maintainer's problems (but does imply m-n / cleaning it). |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> * We can try to help to some extent. |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > At least from my point of view (as member or treecleaners), I would |
| 15 |
> > welcome the tinderbox as would help to detect more broken packages, some |
| 16 |
> > of them really old and that are not going to be fixed but, as nobody |
| 17 |
> > uses them, they are broken for a long time without noticing. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> While this is true, it's is not an immediate problem. If a package is |
| 22 |
> terribly broken, but nobody uses it, then all it does is to occupy a few |
| 23 |
> KB of cvs space. It is a problem, but not a problem we need to be |
| 24 |
> nervous about. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ah, sure. I was referring that I would welcome that, but that it's not |
| 28 |
so urgent (not sure if maybe "welcome" has a different sense for native |
| 29 |
speakers :S) |
Archives