| 1 |
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:49:07 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> Anthony G. Basile schrieb: |
| 4 |
> > On 12/05/14 05:59, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> We found out that pulseaudio ebuild was modified by QA without QA |
| 6 |
> >> talking to the maintainers (gnome team) and without considering/updating |
| 7 |
> >> the relevant bugzilla issue at |
| 8 |
> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=519530 |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > I don't know the policy (I will read the relevant docs later) but its |
| 12 |
> > seems to me to make good sense that, if it is not an emergency (ie the |
| 13 |
> > tree is broken), that QA first inform the maintainer in a bug report |
| 14 |
> > which can then be peer reviewed. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> About the policy: |
| 17 |
> According to GLEP 48, QA can take action against any package not |
| 18 |
> adhering to their standards at their own discretion, and also define |
| 19 |
> what is an emergency all by themselves (i.e. act before or after |
| 20 |
> checking with the maintainer). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The maintainer has the possibility to take it to Council if he |
| 23 |
> disagrees. But until then, QA's decision stands. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I also don't think that GLEP 48 mandates that QA informs anybody about |
| 26 |
> their actions in any way. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If GLEP doesn't reflect current best practices maybe this is a good |
| 29 |
time to supersede it with a new one? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives