Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:45:19
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog by "Andreas K. Huettel"
1 On 12/28/2013 03:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
2 >
3 >>>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate,
4 >>>> you do not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
5 >>>
6 >>> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able
7 >>> to address. You should raise this issue with them rather than
8 >>> accusing each other on the lists.
9 >>
10 >> I completely agree with this. I feel that this thread is a sign that
11 >> there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the
12 >> developers that cause them. I read the entire thread and I still don't
13 >> think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why. Would a
14 >> private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations?
15 >
16 > Introducing repoman warnings deliberately is wrong. Point.
17 > QA can do trivial fixes. Point.
18 >
19 > None of these two points needs any discussion.
20 >
21 Certainly, but look at the size and contents of this thread and now tell
22 me if what you said is clear to everyone. It certainly isn't to the
23 person who caused the problem so what I am saying is that maybe it's
24 better first to communicate the problem with him before starting a
25 public heated discussion.
27 --
28 Regards,
29 Markos Chandras