| 1 |
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 03:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, if it's reached the "take drastic action" stage (which, let's |
| 3 |
> face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a |
| 4 |
> better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going |
| 5 |
> to get any sympathy from anyone. Get QA to issue an official |
| 6 |
> proclamation first if you'd like to legitimise it completely -- the |
| 7 |
> Council has already given them authority to do that... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
+1 on this, Ciaran. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Honestly, *breaking* the tree knowingly should be a no-no. In fact, it |
| 12 |
should be more of a no-no than pissing ${tribal-possessive-developer} |
| 13 |
off. If someone gets miffed because you (QA and/or treecleaners) *fix* |
| 14 |
their package after they've been non-responsive, then I reckon the |
| 15 |
problem is *entirely* on that developer and not on QA. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to |
| 18 |
take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing |
| 19 |
that it does. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Seemant |
Archives