| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA |
| 3 |
> team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead |
| 4 |
> follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to |
| 5 |
> -dev asking for comments first? Does QA trump, or does the maintainer |
| 6 |
> trump when it comes to disputes? |
| 7 |
I think the QA team is free to classify QA bugs, but any changes should |
| 8 |
be pushed to the -dev ML just so that everyone is aware what is |
| 9 |
happening. It's a bit, well, annoying if QA decides that we have to use |
| 10 |
the Wrong Bracing Style in eclasses and files 50 bugs for cosmetic fixes |
| 11 |
while there are ebuilds doing evil things, but if there's a warning |
| 12 |
("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal of |
| 13 |
mkdir in global scope") I can live with that. Also QA should not just |
| 14 |
decide on something without a documented explanation - it will erode |
| 15 |
their credibility as it is seen as a random process unless there is |
| 16 |
documentation. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In case of dispute in general QA should be stronger than a single |
| 19 |
maintainer, but combined with the fact that QA also creates policy that |
| 20 |
would be a bit tricky. Disputes should be escalated along the normal |
| 21 |
devrel dispute lines I think, just think of QA as another herd/project |
| 22 |
and that mostly makes sense :-) |
| 23 |
QA is still new, so the communication channels might not be perfect- I |
| 24 |
hope everybody manages to cooperate so that Gentoo is the least buggy |
| 25 |
distro of them all when 2006.1 comes out ;-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Patrick |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives