| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> No, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. You want to commit |
| 3 |
> first and let the maintainer bring it to the council. I'm saying the |
| 4 |
> maintainer has the right to have any non-security commit to his/her |
| 5 |
> package reverted pending a decision. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yea, I realize now I read it wrong :) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages, |
| 10 |
> and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in |
| 11 |
> the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think it really depends on the situation, but in general I disagree |
| 14 |
that something should be left in a state that the QA team finds |
| 15 |
questionable/broken. It should be a very rare occurence that this comes |
| 16 |
up, since we don't really want to override what the maintainer says, but |
| 17 |
I think the QA team should have this right in extreme circumstances. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) |
| 21 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 22 |
mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 23 |
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ |
| 24 |
http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives