Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:09:04
Message-Id: 20060227190550.GA15442@aerie.halcy0n.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role by Grant Goodyear
1 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> said:
2 > Mark Loeser wrote:
3 > > * In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
4 > > the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
5 >
6 > My suspicion is that the more common problem is going to be inaccessible
7 > developers, rather than uncooperative ones. Certainly, if a maintainer
8 > cannot be contacted, then I would prefer that QA fix the problem rather
9 > than let it languish. So, yes, I do believe that QA needs the ability
10 > to go in and change any package that is broken.
11
12 We hope that it is never the case when someone refuses to cooperate, but
13 it is a possible situation we may likely have to deal with at some
14 point.
15
16 > > * In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not
17 > > break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting. The
18 > > package should be dealt with per QA's request until such a time that a
19 > > decision is made by the council.
20 >
21 > I'm somewhat ambivalent on this one on a couple of points, and the
22 > nxserver case (bug #123926) hits both of them. The first is that it
23 > seems to me that in a case like this one, where the package involved is
24 > a minor one that (I think) is not a dependency of any other packages,
25 > the most that QA should do is hard mask the package w/ a clear note
26 > pointing to the bug report, until some sort of resolution is achieved.
27 > Removing the package would seem to be a bit much. The second is the
28 > fact that I don't really like seeing policy bounced to the council
29 > unless absolutely necessary. Just as was seen here, a discussion on
30 > -dev might well lead to a reasonable compromise. If it doesn't, then
31 > the council can get involved.
32
33 I agree. With regards to the nxserver case, we said the package should
34 be removed if we could not come to a resolution. We never said that we
35 were going to outright remove the package immediately.
36
37 It is not our goal, nor our intent, to go around and remove people's packages
38 from the tree. This entire bullet point is really a worst case scenario when
39 all else breaks down. The same with if there is a disagreement within the
40 majority of the QA team. I don't foresee this occuring often, if at
41 all, but I felt it was important enough to address.
42
43
44 --
45 Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
46 email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
47 mark AT halcy0n DOT com
48 web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
49 http://www.halcy0n.com