| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 06:04:31PM +0200, Angelo Arrifano wrote: |
| 2 |
> «forcing other devs to screen all his commits now» - like torture and |
| 3 |
> pay-back? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> That's exactly what I feel it is entirely wrong. It just makes Gentoo |
| 6 |
> look bad. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Anyway, I think QA should keep their commit acceptability threshold in |
| 9 |
> the same level for everyone. Of course this is easier to say than to do, |
| 10 |
> we are humans after all, and feelings are always involved. |
| 11 |
> Usually, personal interference is avoided by making the review process |
| 12 |
> blind. That is, the person that commits would remain anonymous during |
| 13 |
> the QA review process, but this is hard to apply in practice. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Regards, |
| 16 |
> - Angelo |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This is a matter of perspective. To you it might look like torture and |
| 19 |
pay-back, but for the guys doing it it could be "making sure he |
| 20 |
follows all the guidelines". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I can understand how easy it is to confuse those two if you aren't fully |
| 23 |
informed, though. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
To avoid communicating the wrong message to people outside Gentoo, |
| 26 |
following Maciej's proposal to "lecture" Arfrever in -core would be a |
| 27 |
good idea. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Alex Alexander | wired |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer | Council / Qt / Chromium / more |
| 33 |
www.linuxized.com |
Archives