Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:26:14
Message-Id: w6g1s9xej0c.fsf@kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror by Mike
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror Mike <mpagano@g.o>