| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-11-04 at 19:35 -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Isn't this why we already have the arch tester position as described by |
| 3 |
> > GLEP 41 (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0041.html)? |
| 4 |
> > Furthermore, are you saying that users would enroll themselves via this |
| 5 |
> > hypothetical web interface, or that an arch team would do so for users |
| 6 |
> > who have proven themselves to be worthy? If the former, this would be a |
| 7 |
> > serious step back in terms of QA (think about sorting out all the crap |
| 8 |
> > reports from ricer overlay users with OMGFAST CFLAGS from the decent |
| 9 |
> > ones). If the latter, I think the arch tester position already covers |
| 10 |
> > this sort of thing. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> didn't he ask for people who know a particular application very well? |
| 14 |
> i think there is a big difference between agreeing to test one |
| 15 |
> particular package since they know it very well and want to make sure |
| 16 |
> noone breaks it vs. being a full AT with all the things they get asked |
| 17 |
> to test |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Having a user test an application for a dev isn't a problem, as long as |
| 20 |
the dev takes full responsibility for his resulting actions. This is |
| 21 |
also true for ATs (the devs are still responsible for their commits even |
| 22 |
if its on AT advice). So a dev can keep a list of trusted users, but if |
| 23 |
we want to have an official list, then we need to make sure that the |
| 24 |
people on that list are competent and that's where the AT process is |
| 25 |
important. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Olivier Crête |
| 29 |
tester@g.o |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives