| 1 |
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 19:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> said: |
| 4 |
> >> The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages, |
| 5 |
> >> and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in |
| 6 |
> >> the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I think it really depends on the situation, but in general I disagree |
| 9 |
> > that something should be left in a state that the QA team finds |
| 10 |
> > questionable/broken. It should be a very rare occurence that this comes |
| 11 |
> > up, since we don't really want to override what the maintainer says, but |
| 12 |
> > I think the QA team should have this right in extreme circumstances. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So if QA thinks one way is right, and the package maintainer thinks |
| 15 |
> another way is right, you say QA always trumps? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'm looking at this as "innocent until proven guilty" versus "guilty |
| 18 |
> until proven innocent." When parties are in disagreement, the _current_ |
| 19 |
> situation should stand until the council (or the two groups in question) |
| 20 |
> resolves it. That assumes lack of extenuating circumstances such as |
| 21 |
> security vulnerabilities or major tree breakage. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The devs asked for a council. A council was elected. The council decided |
| 24 |
that QA trumps devs. If anybody has a problem with that they are free to |
| 25 |
object at the next council meeting. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives