Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o>
To: Stephen Bennett <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:11:44
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role by Stephen Bennett
1 28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
3 > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100
4 > Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote:
6 >> When and where has been the following change discussed and who
7 >> approved that?
8 >>
9 >>
11 > According to my recollection, it was discussed between members of QA
12 > and devrel. According to the CVS logs, it was committed by a member of
13 > devrel, at QA's request. You can't pass it off as a QA project
14 > conspiracy, since they didn't make the change.
16 I'm sorry, but discussing such stuff affecting pretty much everyone who
17 writes ebuilds among a couple of people simply isn't enough to make this a
18 policy. And then silently applying this and starting to scream "QA
19 violation, look, what a nasty QA violation!!!" is plain ridiculous.
21 Punting every single piece of broken sh*t from the tree requires notifying
22 everyone on -dev ml and allowing a period of time before it's actually done,
23 so silently changing/stating policies is a very broken practice.
25 --
26 Best regards,
28 Jakub Moc
29 mailto:jakub@g.o
30 GPG signature:
31 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
33 ... still no signature ;)


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Stephen Bennett <spb@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Policies (was: [RFC] QA Team's role) Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>