Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
To: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:35:53
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog by Markos Chandras
1 On 12/28/2013 04:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
2 > On 12/28/2013 03:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
3 >>
4 >>>>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate,
5 >>>>> you do not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
6 >>>>
7 >>>> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able
8 >>>> to address. You should raise this issue with them rather than
9 >>>> accusing each other on the lists.
10 >>>
11 >>> I completely agree with this. I feel that this thread is a sign that
12 >>> there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the
13 >>> developers that cause them. I read the entire thread and I still don't
14 >>> think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why. Would a
15 >>> private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations?
16 >>
17 >> Introducing repoman warnings deliberately is wrong. Point.
18 >> QA can do trivial fixes. Point.
19 >>
20 >> None of these two points needs any discussion.
21 >>
22 > Certainly, but look at the size and contents of this thread and now tell
23 > me if what you said is clear to everyone. It certainly isn't to the
24 > person who caused the problem so what I am saying is that maybe it's
25 > better first to communicate the problem with him before starting a
26 > public heated discussion.
27 >
29 If you read the whole thread, you would know that I did communicate
30 privately beforehand.
32 As in 90% of the cases I guess it was still a mistake to post (this) on
33 dev ML. I definitely do not need your help to address this problem, so
34 please don't feed this thread any further.