| 1 |
On Monday 27 February 2006 12:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:15 +0000 "Stuart Herbert" |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <stuart.herbert@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > Again, then we are going to get into the argument of the definition |
| 6 |
> | > of an emergency and never be able to get anything done. We really |
| 7 |
> | > hope problems never come down to this, which is why we left it |
| 8 |
> | > worded this way. |
| 9 |
> | |
| 10 |
> | Me too. But it will, sooner or later, and when something isn't an |
| 11 |
> | emergency, there's no reason why a change cannot wait until the |
| 12 |
> | dispute has been resolved. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> And, when such a case occurs, there's nothing *requiring* QA to commit |
| 15 |
> before the dispute is resolved. It's extremely likely that QA will work |
| 16 |
> hard to ensure that everyone is happy before something gets changed. |
| 17 |
> However, there are situations where waiting for a month would lead to |
| 18 |
> considerable damage, and in those situations QA must be free to act. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
if something is going to lead to "considerable damage" and the maintainer is |
| 21 |
unwilling to resolve the issue, then i'm pretty sure there's more to be |
| 22 |
resolved here than fixing a package |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
not sure leaving this power open ended is really needed |
| 25 |
-mike |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives