| 1 |
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 21:04 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ok, so given that this is a closed source application, if upstream |
| 3 |
> won't cooperate on something as simple as this, why do you expect them |
| 4 |
> to cooperate with you on bugs or security issues? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That's not the issue here. The issue here is whether the QA team is |
| 7 |
entitled to be requesting the removal of packages in this specific |
| 8 |
instance. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
There are never any guarantees that any UPSTREAM will co-operate with us |
| 11 |
on bugs or security issues. If we can't live with the issues, and we |
| 12 |
can't fix them, the packages get dropped. I've no problem with that. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> | Everything else is up for discussion. I think it's unreasonable to |
| 15 |
> | say that I'm refusing to work with you. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> You're repeatedly closing off the bug rather than suggesting |
| 18 |
> alternative ways of fixing the issue. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think, in this specific case, there are better things to spend the |
| 21 |
time on. I don't have a queue of users telling me that the way we |
| 22 |
handle this today is a problem. There's no evidence that, in this |
| 23 |
specific case, there is a problem out in the real world. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> There's been one possibility |
| 26 |
> mentioned in this thread already, but it can't go anywhere unless |
| 27 |
> someone with an affected package (which is you) is prepared to go to |
| 28 |
> the Portage team with a justification. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Hang on a moment. It's not clear to me why I must go to the Portage |
| 31 |
team for a change, when it's the QA team demanding change? As the QA |
| 32 |
team wants the change, why don't you go to the Portage team and ask them |
| 33 |
to implement DEST_PREFIX? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Because (quite rightly) you'd rather the Portage team did other things |
| 36 |
too. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> See Daniel's post in the thread. The council has already agreed that QA |
| 39 |
> has authority. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Daniel also said that the QA team was supposed to be coming back to the |
| 42 |
council with more information. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> | The issue at hand is that the QA team is, in this case, repeatedly |
| 45 |
> | asking for something it doesn't have the authority to insist on. I |
| 46 |
> | also think you're being unreasonable in this specific case. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> We're asking you to work with us in fixing a tree breakage. That's our |
| 49 |
> goal here. We can't do this if you just go around closing off bugs and |
| 50 |
> refusing to cooperate. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Please stop spreading FUD, and libelling my name here. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Best regards, |
| 55 |
Stu |
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
| 58 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 59 |
http://blog.stuartherbert.com/ |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
| 62 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
| 63 |
-- |
Archives