| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:02:45PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in |
| 5 |
> > > the previous discussions on the devrel list |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > besides, is this a bad thing ? i'd prefer to have devs settle crap |
| 8 |
> > > themselves than ever contacting devrel :P |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > It's very relevant, because it supports the idea of QA taking care of |
| 11 |
> > technical issues on its own. QA can work faster since it's less objected |
| 12 |
> > do and doesn't need endless committees and documentation -- the |
| 13 |
> > documentation is the broken code. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> QA team does not care at all about inner workings of devrel |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> QA team identifies a misbehaving dev who refuses to change and then hands off |
| 18 |
> the name/relevant data to devrel ... QA team then is pretty much done with |
| 19 |
> the issue and the rest is up to devrel to resolve |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Pretty much is what I'm after; just want to ensure no more scenarios |
| 22 |
where stuff gets left broken for 18 months (actual example) due to QA |
| 23 |
having no means to force people to fix their cruft. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This need a proposal, or can the council just do a "make it so" ? |
| 26 |
~harring |
Archives