| 1 |
On T, 2014-02-25 at 11:12 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > We acknowledge that our policy may not have been perfect but we need |
| 4 |
> > time to analyze claims brought up by/to the QA team to construct a |
| 5 |
> > proper proposal for a better policy that would satisfy everyone; |
| 6 |
> > hopefully in co-operation with a QA team. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Is there any reason to think that this analysis will come to a |
| 9 |
> different conclusion? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Here is a reply from my team member Gilles Dartiguelongue (eva), who |
| 12 |
couldn't convince gmane to successfully reach here yet to be properly |
| 13 |
threaded: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
No, but there is no evidence it will not come to a different conclusion |
| 17 |
either. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For what concerns me: |
| 20 |
* I feel QA team did not present the problem in a formal way that is |
| 21 |
adequate to assess whether the decision fits the problem in question. |
| 22 |
* It did not provide an explanation of what cases exactly where not |
| 23 |
satisfied by current policy besides some fuzzy "it does not satisfy |
| 24 |
users", which is a valid starting point but not enough to carry on. |
| 25 |
* It did not provide a clearly written policy with the new list of |
| 26 |
covered cases and eventually some examples to help everyone understand |
| 27 |
it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The few threads the spawned from the QA announcement of the new policy |
| 30 |
clearly shows that not everyone has a clearer view of what are the exact |
| 31 |
implications for the tree and that is imho enough to withhold the policy |
| 32 |
from being applied. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Also, it seems to me like other gtk based DE got left out of the |
| 35 |
discussion. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
We wrote this policy in the first place so that everyone can understand |
| 38 |
why we do things this way and we do not want anyone to mess with it |
| 39 |
without due explanation and justifications because in the end, we will |
| 40 |
be the ones (with other gtk based DE) maintaining this mess in tree. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
In the end, we may reach the same conclusion QA team already stated, but |
| 43 |
we hope to have solid explanations and use cases to explain why it will |
| 44 |
be this way for the good of the tree. |
Archives