Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: peter@×××××.se
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:20:09
Message-Id: 20140121201855.4c81826c@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights by Peter Stuge
1 On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:16:54 +0100
2 Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
4 > Tom Wijsman wrote:
5 > > > Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who
6 > > > do not.
7 > >
8 > > We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is
9 > > optional. :)
10 >
11 > Policies don't enforce quality, people enforce quality.
13 Well, we have policy [1] stating that QA can enforce quality until
14 overridden by a decision by the Council; so, to be fair, there are
15 even more parties involved than just the policy. Which doesn't change
16 the point; we can enforce quality, thus frustration is optional. :)
18 > And doing that is quickly frustrating.
20 There seems to be a lack of frustration in my experience as a QA
21 member; I care about quality by helping people fix breakage, this gives
22 me a feeling of accomplishment instead of a feeling of frustration.
24 > If enforcing quality would be a purely mechanical task there wouldn't
25 > be the same need for people, which would be ideal. But I think we're
26 > some ways away from that still.
28 We have (Auto)RepoMan and it improves as we speak; we are rather quite
29 close to it, making RepoMan warnings fatal is just a step away. Given
30 there is a lack of frustration, why should we do that? It could cause
31 more frustration than what it is trying to fix. Interesting thought...
33 Could we return back to the original subject of this thread?
35 [1]:
37 "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does
38 not break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council
39 meeting. The package should be dealt with per QA's request until
40 such a time that a decision is made by the council."
42 --
43 With kind regards,
45 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
46 Gentoo Developer
48 E-mail address : TomWij@g.o
49 GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
50 GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o>