| 1 |
On Saturday 17 January 2015 17:25:15 hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> Patrick Lauer: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Patrick Lauer: |
| 5 |
> >>> On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>> Patrick Lauer (patrick): |
| 7 |
> >>>>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 |
| 8 |
> >>>>> |
| 9 |
> >>>>> Modified: ChangeLog |
| 10 |
> >>>>> Added: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild |
| 11 |
> >>>>> Log: |
| 12 |
> >>>>> Bump |
| 13 |
> >>>> |
| 14 |
> >>>> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. |
| 15 |
> >>>> That includes QA team members. |
| 16 |
> >>> |
| 17 |
> >>> Are you always in such a bad mood? |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > No. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Patrick, I am really sorry, but this answer made me laugh and cry. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> A review workflow is a fundamental concept in programming methodology |
| 28 |
> and we have decades of experience that taught us how important it is. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
But just "add review" or "add agile" doesn't fix quality. Same way Security is |
| 31 |
not just a checkbox, but a process. (Plus there's the whole manpower thing |
| 32 |
we'll ignore for now, etc. etc. ...) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I'm unwilling to entertain your attempts at baiting me into statements you |
| 35 |
hope to use against me, and I'm unwilling to play your passive-agressive |
| 36 |
whining game. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> I have no words to describe how disappointed I am right now. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It'll pass, don't worry ... |
Archives