| 1 |
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:54:43 +0300 |
| 2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> You can get me to change mind by writing up a policy that says |
| 5 |
> dynamic deps can't be relied upon, and getting rest of the QA |
| 6 |
> team, perhaps council, on board with it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> #gentoo-qa, yesterday: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> 17:50 < floppym> Hmm... documenting when to revbump in relationship to |
| 11 |
> RDEPEND is not a bad idea. However, I think the rules would |
| 12 |
> be a little more subtle than "always". We would also need some way of |
| 13 |
> dealing with eclasses which generate |
| 14 |
> RDEPEND, and also with revbumping stable ebuilds. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Given multiple people request this, this is put on the Meeting Agenda. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Agenda |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> [...] |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Indeed, no need to go forth-and-back about this; everyone who wishes to |
| 23 |
do so, can send their opinion to qa@g.o for it to be taken into |
| 24 |
consideration. State this in the context of the added agenda item and |
| 25 |
that you do not wish to receive a reply. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> [...] |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Bringing up the previous QA team learns us to do more knowledge |
| 30 |
codification; on the other hand, we shouldn't do too much of it either. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
With kind regards, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 36 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 39 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 40 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives