| 1 |
On 28-10-2010 17:20:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of |
| 3 |
> > what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. |
| 4 |
> > I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to |
| 5 |
> > be justified by "QA". |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> removal of quotes from "${A}", EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put |
| 8 |
> econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary |
| 9 |
> cosmetics not worth logging about |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning |
| 12 |
> 'cosmetics' in the commitlog? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> wont be happening |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I just want to avoid that it becomes legal to change any random ebuild |
| 17 |
to someone's liking, and then commit it without ChangeLog (so it is less |
| 18 |
visible?) with the commit message "qa". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have |
| 21 |
something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you |
| 22 |
didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of your actions. |
| 23 |
I don't want to actually get that suspicious feeling, that makes that I |
| 24 |
actually start looking into what you committed. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You, as a QA member, should extra carefully stick to the standing rules |
| 27 |
(even though you don't like them, or find them too slow/bothersome), |
| 28 |
because you can't tell others they don't do things you don't bother to |
| 29 |
do yourself either, do you? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 34 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives