| 1 |
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:36:03 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:18:33 +0000 Roman Gaufman <hackeron@×××××.com> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Would make a very nice QA measure. Any outdated/broken ebuild could be |
| 5 |
> | auto reported to bugzilla and removed in 72 hours if no responce. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Eh? Huh? By "QA measure" you mean "ways of making loads of QA problems"? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You know better, but why would this cause QA problems? -- if |
| 10 |
maintainer disappeared and the package just sits there for years, |
| 11 |
hell, let it be removed. Otherwise, a maintainer can just reply to bug |
| 12 |
report and not be asked about it again. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> | I think gentoo really needs QA measures of this sort. Like in debian, |
| 15 |
> | packages get moved up from unstable to testing automatically if no |
| 16 |
> | critical reports were made for 2 weeks. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> We've already discussed over and over why we can't do this. It would be |
| 19 |
> a QA nightmare. |
| 20 |
ok, that would be a QA nightmare. I'm just giving an example of how |
| 21 |
another popular distribution automates some of their QA (this example |
| 22 |
shows how not to do it though). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives