| 1 |
Renat Lumpau wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
>> today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user |
| 4 |
>> files a report at bugs.gentoo.org |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out |
| 7 |
> which QA issues are important and which are less so. A QA team member's opinion |
| 8 |
> (personal attacks, whatever) should be an important input but not the final say. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
At the risk of trying to get this conversation back on track, here's |
| 11 |
what has been happening: Some members of the QA team are working on a |
| 12 |
new QA tool to identify QA problems in the portage tree. As they add |
| 13 |
new tests, they run their tool on the tree, and file bugs on any |
| 14 |
packages that are found to violate that particular QA test. I think |
| 15 |
it's fair to say that these QA checks will find problems ranging from |
| 16 |
not-awful-but-annoying to could-break-your-system, but they are all bugs |
| 17 |
that ought to be fixed eventually. Now, if you're currently working on |
| 18 |
fixing a big problem and thus too busy to fix the little one, that's |
| 19 |
perfectly reasonable, but to not fix a small bug because you know there |
| 20 |
are larger bugs that aren't fixed just seems lazy. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA |
| 23 |
team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead |
| 24 |
follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to |
| 25 |
-dev asking for comments first? Does QA trump, or does the maintainer |
| 26 |
trump when it comes to disputes? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-g2boojum- |
Archives