1 |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 06:58:44 +0200 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:21:16 +0200 |
5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400 |
8 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > > If you just check your packages occassionally to make sure they |
11 |
> > > build with gold it completely achieves the goal, and it will |
12 |
> > > actually result in fewer bugs using the non-gold linker as |
13 |
> > > well. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > That's what a tinderbox is for. The only QA problem I see here is |
16 |
> > that QA doesn't automate that kind of checks anymore since Diego |
17 |
> > left. Maybe QA should ask Toralf to run a ld.gold tinderbox and |
18 |
> > avoid asking people to randomly test random packages ? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Yes, tinderboxing makes a lot of sense if the bugs are afterwards |
21 |
> ignored by package maintainers. |
22 |
|
23 |
"ignored" is rather strong here; considering people join gentoo and |
24 |
basically work for free, I'd rather say "not considered important |
25 |
enough" which yields basically the same result but without accusing |
26 |
people of refusing to fix a bug. With that in mind, everybody is free |
27 |
to submit patches to bugzie, and if it is a QA goal, QA is free to |
28 |
apply it after some time. Nothing is blocked here, expect when people |
29 |
prefer to hit fellow developers "with a cluebat" rather than getting |
30 |
things done. |
31 |
|
32 |
> Or in the best case, the maintainer |
33 |
> tells reporter (Toralf) to file the bug upstream. |
34 |
|
35 |
It's not because Toralf reported it that he is the only one that has |
36 |
the right to report it upstream. Obtaining fixes from those that know |
37 |
the package best is good, isn't it ? I thought we learned from the past |
38 |
and tried to avoid, e.g., fixing valgrind warnings in libssl by our |
39 |
own :) |
40 |
|
41 |
Alexis. |