Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:21:56
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role by Renat Lumpau
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
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.
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.
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?
28 -g2boojum-


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Renat Lumpau <rl03@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>