| 1 |
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 17:33 -0600, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Actually, because we paid attention to it, it has not lead to any |
| 3 |
> > serious treaths to stable arches trees. So if we let go and you do for |
| 4 |
> > once suffer the consequences, this might still change, but I hope it |
| 5 |
> > won't have to come that. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If this is truly the case, then why are the arch teams not notified? |
| 8 |
> Isn't that exactly what we exist for? And how can a package maintainer |
| 9 |
> then apply and QA a fix a problem for an architecture for which they |
| 10 |
> cannot test? Also, who is "we"? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The arch teams are notified, but the same thing happens again and again |
| 13 |
and that has to lead to this thread. |
| 14 |
About your problem & fixing : that's the whole deal, it is general |
| 15 |
issues that slip trough this way, so it's the package maintainers |
| 16 |
responsibility. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Personally, I cannot see how having a package maintainer that cannot test |
| 19 |
> for a given architecture can provide any level of QA towards that |
| 20 |
> architecture without outside help. Additionally, outsides of cases where |
| 21 |
> new versions or revisions cause problems with dependencies (or the usual |
| 22 |
> ~arching of a new rev/version of a given package), package maintainers who |
| 23 |
> cannot test for a given architecture shouldn't be adjusting those |
| 24 |
> keywords. Again these are just my feelings and not any form of policy |
| 25 |
> that I'm aware of. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You skip things around. It is not the 'maintainers arch' that is QA-ing |
| 28 |
for an arch it does not maintain, it's the 'arch maintainer' thats skips |
| 29 |
part of QA done by the 'package maintainer'. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- foser |
Archives