1 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> said: |
2 |
> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
3 |
> > So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA |
4 |
> > team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead |
5 |
> > follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to |
6 |
> > -dev asking for comments first? Does QA trump, or does the maintainer |
7 |
> > trump when it comes to disputes? |
8 |
> I think the QA team is free to classify QA bugs, but any changes should |
9 |
> be pushed to the -dev ML just so that everyone is aware what is |
10 |
> happening. It's a bit, well, annoying if QA decides that we have to use |
11 |
> the Wrong Bracing Style in eclasses and files 50 bugs for cosmetic fixes |
12 |
> while there are ebuilds doing evil things, but if there's a warning |
13 |
> ("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal of |
14 |
> mkdir in global scope") I can live with that. Also QA should not just |
15 |
> decide on something without a documented explanation - it will erode |
16 |
> their credibility as it is seen as a random process unless there is |
17 |
> documentation. |
18 |
|
19 |
As I said, we plan on documenting everything as we find problems. I |
20 |
also don't expect us to be capable of creating completely new policies |
21 |
off in some corner and just surprise people with them. Communication |
22 |
with the rest of Gentoo is going to be needed, but I am not sure of the |
23 |
best possible way to get things "approved". I think if something we find |
24 |
is highly questionable, that we should be able to "fix" it if possible, |
25 |
until such a time when a decision can be reached. (more on this below) |
26 |
|
27 |
> In case of dispute in general QA should be stronger than a single |
28 |
> maintainer, but combined with the fact that QA also creates policy that |
29 |
> would be a bit tricky. Disputes should be escalated along the normal |
30 |
> devrel dispute lines I think, just think of QA as another herd/project |
31 |
> and that mostly makes sense :-) |
32 |
|
33 |
Devrel is really for non-technical issues, and for dev->dev problems. |
34 |
I would like to see enough trust in the QA team to be able to make these |
35 |
decisions on its own, instead of making one team responsible for |
36 |
everything (devrel). |
37 |
|
38 |
> QA is still new, so the communication channels might not be perfect- I |
39 |
> hope everybody manages to cooperate so that Gentoo is the least buggy |
40 |
> distro of them all when 2006.1 comes out ;-) |
41 |
|
42 |
Thanks, hopefully enough people have faith in us to do the right thing |
43 |
so that we can get everything fixed up that we can. |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) |
47 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
48 |
mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
49 |
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ |
50 |
http://www.halcy0n.com |