| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>>whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then |
| 7 |
>>>they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the |
| 8 |
>>>subject |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>>considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it |
| 11 |
>>>into a proper QA check by having the class see where files were installed |
| 12 |
>>>and then warn/abort if certain conditions are met |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>>there's no reason for the user to see this crap |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>>Yeah, and there's no reason for user to see USE_EXPAND QA notice crap, |
| 17 |
>>eclass inherited illegally crap and a couple of others - this isn't going |
| 18 |
>>anywhere. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> unrelated ... that is a portage limitation that has deeper work going on |
| 22 |
> around it to resolve the issue properly ... this is an eclass limitation that |
| 23 |
> can be resolved now |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>>You are trying to solve something that noone ever complained about. Why not |
| 27 |
>>rather solve stuff like ebuilds that depend unconditionally on arts, but |
| 28 |
>>because they inherit kde eclass they get bogus arts use flag from the |
| 29 |
>>eclass. This is an issue that's truly confusing and that people are filing |
| 30 |
>>bugs about. There's the difference between doing something useful and |
| 31 |
>>wasting time on an artificially invented issue. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> right, so from now on people shouldnt bother fixing issues until a bug is |
| 35 |
> filed, that way we know someone actually cares enough to have the issue |
| 36 |
> resolved |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user |
| 39 |
> files a report at bugs.gentoo.org |
| 40 |
> -mike |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Actually as was mentioned on #gentoo-qa earlier today, I'd prefer to see |
| 43 |
bugs filed in almost all circumstances. If QA and the maintainer can |
| 44 |
fix stuff without bugs, thats cool, especially for trivial matters. If |
| 45 |
QA and the developer aren't getting along on a specific issue then there |
| 46 |
is no reason NOT to have a bug open. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Otherwise you get circumstances that were also discussed, such as "I |
| 49 |
told the maintainer in person over a year ago..." which may in fact be |
| 50 |
true, but people forget things and make mistakes and now you have |
| 51 |
nothing to point at for proof of inactivity except a vague statement. |
| 52 |
Better to cover your rear and be able to point to a year old bug with a |
| 53 |
solution attached, and be like "look there is a bug and a fix and no one |
| 54 |
did jack squat." Essentially you have a case for any sane developer to |
| 55 |
agree with. |
Archives