| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this |
| 4 |
> > enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people |
| 5 |
> > believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the |
| 6 |
> > council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear |
| 7 |
> > alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> As Stuart mentioned, this is not a good idea. If the maintainer |
| 10 |
> disagrees with QA-made changes, the changes should be reverted until a |
| 11 |
> higher-level decision is made. This mirrors FreeBSD policy [1], which |
| 12 |
> seems to be working quite well for them. A particularly relevant part is |
| 13 |
> this: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> "Any disputed change must be backed out pending resolution of the |
| 16 |
> dispute if requested by a maintainer. Security related changes may |
| 17 |
> override a maintainer's wishes at the Security Officer's discretion." |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Which is basically what we are saying. Stuart seems to be saying to |
| 20 |
leave things "broken" and wait until a higher level decision is made. |
| 21 |
We want to fix it/back it out/do whatever, and then come to some |
| 22 |
resolution later if we couldn't at first. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) |
| 26 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 27 |
mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 28 |
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ |
| 29 |
http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives