1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Mike wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Picking random email. |
4 |
|
5 |
> I would like to say I'm glad we can discuss our technical differences |
6 |
> like this with both sides expressing their opinion and reasoning. |
7 |
|
8 |
> I would hope in the future we start with this path and not with |
9 |
> disciplinary action or bugs requesting the removal of commit access. |
10 |
|
11 |
> We're showing here we can bring up our points without handing out "QA |
12 |
> strikes" or some other type of confrontational action. |
13 |
|
14 |
Sorry, but I am tired of that antagonising of the QA team. |
15 |
|
16 |
There hasn't been any bug about commit access removal. And not sure what |
17 |
you mean with "QA strike", but there also wasn't any direct QA action on |
18 |
the package that triggered the current discussion. After being CCed to a |
19 |
bug, the QA team has merely pointed out to the maintainer that the |
20 |
package is not in agreement with the current policy (as it is defined in |
21 |
the devmanual). |
22 |
|
23 |
IMHO this is the QA team's purpose. Or what would you expect us to do |
24 |
instead? Remain silent if asked by another developer to evaluate an |
25 |
issue? Then we could as well disband QA. |
26 |
|
27 |
Also note that there are several remedies if there is disagreement |
28 |
between a maintainer and QA, like asking QA for an exception, appealing |
29 |
to the council, or changing the policy in question. |
30 |
|
31 |
Ulrich |