1 |
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:46:37 +0000 Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
| On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 20:00 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
| > Then you must talk to upstream and get them to change their ways. |
5 |
| |
6 |
| Already covered in the (growing) discussion in bug #123926. UPSTREAM |
7 |
| have previously been contacted over the issue, and have not changed |
8 |
| their release policy. |
9 |
|
10 |
Ok, so given that this is a closed source application, if upstream |
11 |
won't cooperate on something as simple as this, why do you expect them |
12 |
to cooperate with you on bugs or security issues? |
13 |
|
14 |
| I'm a little rusty at this - it's six years since I ran the DDS4 test |
15 |
| team for HP - but isn't one of the internationally recognised |
16 |
| requirements of every recognised QA standard that exists that a QA |
17 |
| policy should be documented? |
18 |
|
19 |
Utterly impractical. If you want to hire a dozen people to do this, go |
20 |
right ahead. But then, if you're hiring a dozen people, there are far |
21 |
more useful things they could be doing. |
22 |
|
23 |
| On a practical note, I don't understand how you expect developers to |
24 |
| follow an undocumented QA process. Sorry, I just don't get that one. |
25 |
|
26 |
We expect you to be sensible. When this fails, we point out issues and |
27 |
work with the developer to get things fixed. |
28 |
|
29 |
Over the past couple of weeks, QA has gotten somewhere around a couple |
30 |
of hundred tree issues fixed. In every situation bar three, the |
31 |
response has been "thanks for pointing this out". In another two, the |
32 |
response was to fix the bug silently. |
33 |
|
34 |
No-one is expecting perfection. QA is here first and foremost to find |
35 |
issues, get them fixed and try to prevent the same breakage from being |
36 |
repeated. |
37 |
|
38 |
| Everything else is up for discussion. I think it's unreasonable to |
39 |
| say that I'm refusing to work with you. |
40 |
|
41 |
You're repeatedly closing off the bug rather than suggesting |
42 |
alternative ways of fixing the issue. There's been one possibility |
43 |
mentioned in this thread already, but it can't go anywhere unless |
44 |
someone with an affected package (which is you) is prepared to go to |
45 |
the Portage team with a justification. |
46 |
|
47 |
| Bearing in mind the discussion that's happened in the bug, on IRC with |
48 |
| Halcy0n, and in this mailing list, please understand this: I don't |
49 |
| believe that the QA team has provided evidence that it has the |
50 |
| authority to do anything to these packages over this SRC_URI issue. |
51 |
| If the team chooses to take unilateral action, I'll be left with no |
52 |
| choice but to file a formal complaint against the team as a |
53 |
| consequence. |
54 |
|
55 |
See Daniel's post in the thread. The council has already agreed that QA |
56 |
has authority. |
57 |
|
58 |
| I'm happy (and have suggested earlier) that this issue needs to go to |
59 |
| the council to be resolved. |
60 |
|
61 |
Being done. The council will be asked to approve a more specific |
62 |
description of QA's authority in the next meeting, since our existing |
63 |
mandate is "listen to the QA team because they're working of valid |
64 |
policy. if you dont, devrel will take action" (sic). |
65 |
|
66 |
| The issue at hand is that the QA team is, in this case, repeatedly |
67 |
| asking for something it doesn't have the authority to insist on. I |
68 |
| also think you're being unreasonable in this specific case. |
69 |
|
70 |
We're asking you to work with us in fixing a tree breakage. That's our |
71 |
goal here. We can't do this if you just go around closing off bugs and |
72 |
refusing to cooperate. |
73 |
|
74 |
-- |
75 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) |
76 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
77 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |