| 1 |
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 00:08, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> dont get me wrong, i wasnt implying that bugs shouldnt be filed ... i was |
| 4 |
> addressing the incorrect idea that it isnt a valid QA issue unless a user |
| 5 |
> experiences it and complains via bugzilla |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I agree with this. I would however also like to ask QA to allow exceptions to |
| 8 |
policy for well-discussed reasons. Sometimes ugly hacks are needed, and as |
| 9 |
long as they are understood to be ugly, they must not be banned outright. I |
| 10 |
don't think it is a problem if those issues have LATER bugs on them blocking |
| 11 |
on some feature request bug. I can even agree with it that a feature request |
| 12 |
bug must be written for such a hack to be allowed. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
With respect to webapp-config. I know it's ugly, I know it does perform jobs |
| 15 |
that should be performed by portage. Portage however doesn't, and |
| 16 |
webapp-config does provide valuable features for many users. As such, as long |
| 17 |
as portage does not offer the features that webapp-config provides, I am of |
| 18 |
the opinion that the webapp.eclass should be allowed to use "minimal" hacks |
| 19 |
to provide the webapp features. QA's role in this case is to ensure that no |
| 20 |
hacks are added, and to signal it when the hacks break. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Paul |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 28 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives