1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On Tuesday 22 June 2004 03:54 pm, Aron Griffis wrote: |
5 |
> I'm a little confused about what you're saying here. I totally agree, |
6 |
> there are exceptions. That fact has been stated numerous times in |
7 |
> these threads, and I don't think anybody disagrees. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Regarding avoiding a hard requirement, there would certainly be no |
10 |
> need to "cvs commit" to get around the checking done by repoman. |
11 |
> Personally I wouldn't be opposed to an option similar to -I to prevent |
12 |
> developers from accidentally submitting such changes. Both -I and the |
13 |
> new flag are for overriding repoman's QA checks. IMHO that is |
14 |
> something that should be done seldom enough that it's not asking a lot |
15 |
> from developers. Do you really think it would be that painful? :-( |
16 |
|
17 |
I only made another mention of that third requirement since you were outlining |
18 |
them again in a declarative way. That is, these are the goals of |
19 |
implementing this new QA procedure. |
20 |
|
21 |
I've only used -I a couple of times, myself. And in those cases, only because |
22 |
another arch's keywording was screwy. My comment didn't advocate going |
23 |
around repoman's checks, only that it;s important that this QA check not |
24 |
cause repoman QA checking to fail entirely. |
25 |
|
26 |
- -- |
27 |
Jason Huebel |
28 |
Gentoo/amd64 Strategic Lead |
29 |
Gentoo Developer Relations/Recruiter |
30 |
|
31 |
GPG Public Key: |
32 |
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9BA9E230 |
33 |
|
34 |
"Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand." |
35 |
Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677) |
36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
37 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
38 |
|
39 |
iD8DBQFA2NS9bNgbbJup4jARAmihAJ4+0H+lsvnAPP2gXAOWfhudN3Cx5QCfePlw |
40 |
/7wneFGnt13Rlz2JK5fz/O8= |
41 |
=xygh |
42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |