| 1 |
> I don't really intend to drop my jobs to others - this isn't me, I take |
| 2 |
> my responsibilities very seriously. But if you think you'll be doing a |
| 3 |
> better job by taking it, please, be my guest. I don't want to appear as |
| 4 |
> the guy who broked Gentoo's QA procedures... |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Nobody is asking you to drop your job. However, what people are saying |
| 7 |
is if you don't have hardware, then how can you properly maintain a |
| 8 |
driver for it? If I didn't have any mips machines, how could I be a |
| 9 |
member of the mips team? Instead of trying to maintain a bunch of |
| 10 |
drivers that you can't test, why don't you recruit some more devs for |
| 11 |
the dialup herd who do have such hardware? You can create a team that |
| 12 |
coordinates through you to ensure good QA for these drivers. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'm only annoyed by the bad attitude of some devs who will get involved |
| 16 |
> only what suits them, forgetting that if they would not help, no one |
| 17 |
> will. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Again, other developers can only get involved (in this situation) if |
| 20 |
they have hardware. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Btw, what is the sense of ~arch if not "testing"? No gentooer |
| 23 |
> expects from a ~arch ebuild to be stable, so the sky would not fall if |
| 24 |
> you made a mistake and release it under this keyword. When I hear "I |
| 25 |
> cannot mark foo library as ~arch because I don't know how to test it" |
| 26 |
> smells like excuse to me. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Either you are confused or you are trying to turn this into a subtle |
| 29 |
troll. This fork of the discussion started in reference to *stable* |
| 30 |
keywording with respect to the rp-pppoe bug you used as an example. I |
| 31 |
usually have no problem marking something ~arch if it compiles, since |
| 32 |
~arch just means it is a candidate for possibly becoming stable some |
| 33 |
time in the future. Anyone using ~arch keywords should be prepared for |
| 34 |
a bumpy ride. However, once that ebuild goes stable, in theory it |
| 35 |
should JustWork(TM) with no problems. In this particular case, none of |
| 36 |
the mips team could vouch that rp-pppoe JustWorks(TM). |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> As for QA... does anyone think we *can* have proper QA procedures, with |
| 39 |
> our release speed and decentralized development model? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Sure. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> And with only ... |
| 44 |
> 350 devs from which God knows how many are still active? :-D |
| 45 |
> Who thinks that clearly doesn't have a clue what QA means. It is |
| 46 |
> practically impossible to test every combination of ebuilds/USE/CFLAGS |
| 47 |
> so all we do is a surface test, letting the burden of testing on the |
| 48 |
> shoulders of our users. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
This is what ~arch is for. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> Despite of our unorthodox development process, many people believes |
| 53 |
> (including me) that our distro surclass traditional ones and is |
| 54 |
> generally more stable (go figure!). |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Stating that we have an |
| 57 |
excellent distro doesn't mean that we can bypass QA policy. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> Maybe I'm too exigent, but I only ask from people to do what I do : be |
| 60 |
> genuinely interested in helping the devs who need it. Heck, I always try |
| 61 |
> to help any gentooer, dev or not. We all have our little systems because |
| 62 |
> our predecesors have worked on it, not because they sit down and |
| 63 |
> debated whether to mark foo ebuild as ~arch or not. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Again, you are referring to ~arch, which is not what the original |
| 66 |
problem was with. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Steve |
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives