| 1 |
On 20 June 2013 04:53, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Does this mean the QA lead finally gets to suspend people who are patently |
| 3 |
> not suited for developing a stable distribution without asking devrel? |
| 4 |
> Because last time we got into the same judge, jury, and executioner |
| 5 |
> argument, which I guess was just sent for the gallows (pun intended). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Mind, it's not like I disagree with at least one of the actions that you |
| 8 |
> took recently, but given your surge approach I would like to point out that |
| 9 |
> is not your task judging code quality, and yes that does make me |
| 10 |
> uncomfortable, that you want to pick up the full power at once, and not |
| 11 |
> collaborate with whom should have been involved in the process. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 15 |
> flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
There is a high chance I drive this thread off-topic but: |
| 20 |
I believe the QA lead always had the power to suspend people if they |
| 21 |
break the tree but like I explained to my e-mail this is a temporary |
| 22 |
solution so it's not something we want in the long-term. Such actions |
| 23 |
need to be discussed internally. It's true that is not our task to |
| 24 |
judge code. But my understanding was that QA is not willing to pick up |
| 25 |
this task. We've seen numerous examples of bad commits or CCs of |
| 26 |
qa@g.o in bugs with several technical disagreements and not a single |
| 27 |
QA warning "you are doing it wrong". I could easily be wrong though as |
| 28 |
I can't track everything. My opinion is that you need to bring more |
| 29 |
people in QA so you can delegate the "technical" tasks to them. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 34 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives