| 1 |
On 16/12/17 17:45, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2017, 13:21:47 CET schrieb Fabian Groffen: |
| 3 |
>> Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification |
| 4 |
>> for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be |
| 5 |
>> preferred, but a pointer to a location where said issues can be found |
| 6 |
>> would do too. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Thanks, |
| 9 |
>> Fabian |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> On 14-12-2017 12:10:59 +0000, Andreas Hüttel wrote: |
| 12 |
>>> URL: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=34e2c43f |
| 13 |
> That would have been a good thing to do, yes. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Unfortunately I was between two meetings, just saw the message on #gentoo-qa |
| 16 |
> that someone had committed straight to m-n, and if it could be reverted by |
| 17 |
> someone with tree access, and decided to quickly help out. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> (And adding a new package straight to m-n is in my opinion enough reason for |
| 20 |
> an immediate revert.) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> That said I think we have sorted out things in the meantime. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
Andreas, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks for the explanation out in the clear! |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Might I politely, with all due respect, suggest that drive-by tree |
| 29 |
commits are avoided, without adequate prior investigation. Whilst I |
| 30 |
think your intentions were indeed noble and justified, the resolution |
| 31 |
was not ideal .. (not that perfection is ever achievable) .. but perhaps |
| 32 |
alerting another member of QA to do said investigation may have been a |
| 33 |
slightly better method! :] |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michael. |
Archives