1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 4/28/2014 9:41 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: |
5 |
> 28.04.2014 17:30, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: |
6 |
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:08:28 +1000 Michael Palimaka |
7 |
>> <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
>>> On 04/28/2014 04:56 PM, hasufell wrote: |
9 |
>>>> What is going on here? Doesn't look right. The commit |
10 |
>>>> messages don't give an understandable reason. |
11 |
>>>> |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> It was added to the tree by someone outside the Qt team |
14 |
>>> without permission. Since it's not ready for the tree yet, it |
15 |
>>> was immediately removed again. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> So the Qt team is overriding the QA team now? Is it |
18 |
>> alphabetical? |
19 |
>> |
20 |
> |
21 |
> As a Qt team lead i want to say that there is no permission for me |
22 |
> or pesa(as the main maintainer of Qt Framework packages) for |
23 |
> importing Qt 5 in tree. So, i kindly asks zlogene to remove that |
24 |
> stuff from main tree. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> As QA team member - there was no serious QA issue here - ebuilds, |
27 |
> even semi-broken, was bringed with apropriate masks, so - no damage |
28 |
> on users's systems. |
29 |
> |
30 |
Saying that a Qt team member did something wrong because he reverted |
31 |
an action taken by someone who happens to be a member of the QA team |
32 |
is like saying that I can't revert something done by a council member |
33 |
to one of my packages just because they happen to be on the council. |
34 |
As Pinkbyte said, there was no QA issue here, just a developer being |
35 |
quick on the trigger, so the membership of any parties in QA is |
36 |
irrelevant to the discussion. |
37 |
|
38 |
Chris Reffett |
39 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
40 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) |
41 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
42 |
|
43 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlNeW8IACgkQ23laikJhg1RQ6wCbBVdKKUe0J9n74CPBOmOdWmvz |
44 |
JqEAmgM5PuT29aF5Djyp6X1thdo2z/WX |
45 |
=E9g0 |
46 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |