| 1 |
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 07:45 pm, Curtis Napier wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to |
| 5 |
> >>competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some |
| 6 |
> >>sort of limited ability to "temporarily" take away write access to the |
| 7 |
> >>tree until devrel has a chance to look over the evidence and come to a |
| 8 |
> >>decision. This would fix the problem of "devrel takes to long" plus it |
| 9 |
> >>would really help to ensure higher quality work is submitted (because |
| 10 |
> >>ebuild devs WILL stop purposely commiting bad work if they know a QA |
| 11 |
> >>team member can take away their write access at a moments notice for |
| 12 |
> >>repeated violations). |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > The other thing that'd fix the 'devrel takes so long' problem would be |
| 15 |
> > if people would let devrel fix its resolution policies 8) (see recent |
| 16 |
> > -devrel ml thread) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It's not about devrel taking a long time. Please don't think that I was |
| 19 |
> bashing devrel in any way, in fact I have great respect for the devrel |
| 20 |
> members. I know what a thankless task they have taken on and the |
| 21 |
> bullshit they have to put up with on an almost daily basis. Kudos to you. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
his comment wasnt directed at you in any way, it was to try and get support |
| 24 |
for the new proposal floating on the devrel list atm |
| 25 |
-mike |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives