| 1 |
On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:44:45 +0000 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> It certainly isn't to the person who caused the problem |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Hard to tell from skimming the context, but in his first mail there is |
| 7 |
an acknowledgment that there was previous communication between both |
| 8 |
persons; it just appears to be that both of them insist or their view. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> so what I am saying is that maybe it's better first to communicate |
| 11 |
> the problem with him before starting a public heated discussion. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Communication is fine; it's been told by repoman, a revert and Patrick. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Solutions like pinging every single person for every small change or |
| 16 |
filing a bug for every single line that could involve QA is a good way |
| 17 |
to burn out the QA team again or create an useless bug backlog. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What really does need a solution here are that "reverts" have happened; |
| 20 |
it should be a rule that an action cannot be done twice without |
| 21 |
agreement, to force people to rather constructively discuss it instead. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
"'Cause I want it that way..." ~ Backstreet Boys |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
With kind regards, |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 29 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 32 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 33 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives