| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:38:04PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:42:43 +0200 Thierry Carrez <koon@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Before debating if the QA team should have more power to enforce, |
| 5 |
> | let's just have a proper QA project. Apparently not much devs want to |
| 6 |
> | do QA, not sure telling them they will do QA+police will help in |
| 7 |
> | motivating them. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Part of the problem with that is that people who *would* normally do QA |
| 10 |
> think it's pretty much futile right now anyway, since the worst |
| 11 |
> offenders just carry on breaking things no matter how often they're |
| 12 |
> asked to stop... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'd agree; this is the reason I stopped auditing eclasses a year back. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
We've had bugs where flat out invalid deps (DEPEND dependant on |
| 17 |
has_version calls) sat for 2 years, *despite* QA/portage devs laying |
| 18 |
it on thick that this is totally invalid. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That's not even getting into user complaints. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
There are people doing QA, the problem historically has been getting |
| 23 |
people who don't care to fix their stuff. That's a *really* quick way |
| 24 |
to burn out people doing QA; the fact that there is a problem, but |
| 25 |
they have no means beyond nagging to get the offender to fix their |
| 26 |
mess. There's only so much nagging one can do before they say "screw |
| 27 |
it", and wander off to do something a bit more productive. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If QA actually had some power beyond a pissed off member complaining |
| 30 |
to devrel, I'd expect you would see those burnt out by past attempts |
| 31 |
starting again. I'd be game for resuming auditing of eclasses, |
| 32 |
personally. |
| 33 |
~harring |
Archives