Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote:
>
> Do not get me wrong, Patrick. You, as QA team member, can touch other's
> packages without prior noticing, if fixing serious issues involved. But
> with great power comes great responsibility. Please, use your power more
> wisely next time.
>

This wasn't a QA commit.

QA modifications should always be noted as such in the
commit/changelogs/etc.  If you revert/etc one of these commits expect
to be called on it, and you had better have a REALLY good reason for
it.  You're best off pinging somebody in QA if you have an issue with
a QA commit, and working with them.  If somebody feels QA commits are
being abused they should reach out to the QA lead, or ultimately
Comrel/Council if things can't be worked out - as you say with great
power comes great responsibility.

Commits made by people who happen to be members of QA that aren't
labeled as QA commits are the same as commits made by any random
developer, and should generally follow the same processes.  That means
working out things 1:1 if possible, and if not going through the
normal Comrel process.

The QA team really had nothing to do with this commit.  I don't think
bringing up QA is particularly helpful here.

However, in general developers should always work with maintainers
when modifying their packages, especially for things like bumps.  It
isn't always practical to consult with individual developers for
tree-wide work, but this kind of work should generally be announced on
the appropriate lists and so on, and will often use tracker bugs and
the like.  It sounds like neither was done here.  However, in these
sorts of situations it is probably better to let Comrel do their job
(and appeal to Council if you're unsatisfied with it), rather than
having everybody bicker on the list.

-- 
Rich