| 1 |
johnm@g.o said: |
| 2 |
> yeah, thats totally understandable. Its a best-efforts thing. I just |
| 3 |
> don't want neccessary to be deemed true for something which has an |
| 4 |
> arguable point with technical merit. Blatent mkdir-esque madness would |
| 5 |
> be more black than white, and I'd hope for this to try and sanitise the |
| 6 |
> gray :) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Later on we tried to address that by saying the majority of the QA team |
| 9 |
members must agree with the action. It is normally pretty black and |
| 10 |
white when things are necessary, and I do not know how we can accurately |
| 11 |
describe those problems without limiting our scope. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > The problem with that is, it usually ends up with too many pointless |
| 14 |
> > comments from people saying how things could be fixed in the distant |
| 15 |
> > future, or whining that it isn't explicitly forbidden by policy on |
| 16 |
> > situations where the screwup was too weird to be documented previously. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This is very much a case-by-case thing. I still feel the debate should |
| 19 |
> be better answered outside of conflicting qa members. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this |
| 22 |
enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people |
| 23 |
believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the |
| 24 |
council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear |
| 25 |
alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) |
| 29 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 30 |
mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 31 |
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ |
| 32 |
http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives