| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:50:06 +0700 |
| 3 |
> "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" <mva@×××.name> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> You're right in all remarks, but Maxim is just proxy here. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> And that's where the whole proxy maintainership falls down, isn't it? |
| 8 |
> The committer should check for and take responsibility for any QA |
| 9 |
> issues that may arise. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Not having seen the original email, this is just a generalization. |
| 12 |
Sure, those who commit are responsible for QA, but in general we |
| 13 |
should be going easy on them, especially for minor stuff. If nobody |
| 14 |
is willing to commit then there will be no proxies. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Look at Linus as an example - do you think he tests half the code he |
| 17 |
merges personally? He probably doesn't even own hardware for 80% of |
| 18 |
the drivers in the kernel. What he does do is ensure that he can |
| 19 |
trust the people who feed stuff to him, and deal with them when they |
| 20 |
drop the ball. I see that as the role of a Gentoo dev who is proxying |
| 21 |
- they do provide a level of quality, but their main role should be to |
| 22 |
liaison with the proxy maintainer and ensure that they are keeping up |
| 23 |
their end of the bargain. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives