Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:58, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >>28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>whats your point ?  if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> >>>they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
> >>>subject
> >>>
> >>>considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it
> >>>into a proper QA check by having the class see where files were
> >>> installed and then warn/abort if certain conditions are met
> >>>
> >>>there's no reason for the user to see this crap
> >>
> >>Yeah, and there's no reason for user to see USE_EXPAND QA notice crap,
> >>eclass inherited illegally crap and a couple of others - this isn't going
> >>anywhere.
> >
> > unrelated ... that is a portage limitation that has deeper work going on
> > around it to resolve the issue properly ... this is an eclass limitation
> > that can be resolved now
> >
> >>You are trying to solve something that noone ever complained about. Why
> >> not rather solve stuff like ebuilds that depend unconditionally on arts,
> >> but because they inherit kde eclass they get bogus arts use flag from
> >> the eclass. This is an issue that's truly confusing and that people are
> >> filing bugs about. There's the difference between doing something useful
> >> and wasting time on an artificially invented issue.
> >
> > right, so from now on people shouldnt bother fixing issues until a bug is
> > filed, that way we know someone actually cares enough to have the issue
> > resolved
> >
> > today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
> > files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
>
> Actually as was mentioned on #gentoo-qa earlier today, I'd prefer to see
> bugs filed in almost all circumstances.  If QA and the maintainer can
> fix stuff without bugs, thats cool, especially for trivial matters.  If
> QA and the developer aren't getting along on a specific issue then there
> is no reason NOT to have a bug open.
>
> Otherwise you get circumstances that were also discussed, such as "I
> told the maintainer in person over a year ago..." which may in fact be
> true, but people forget things and make mistakes and now you have
> nothing to point at for proof of inactivity except a vague statement.
> Better to cover your rear and be able to point to a year old bug with a
> solution attached, and be like "look there is a bug and a fix and no one
> did jack squat."  Essentially you have a case for any sane developer to
> agree with.

dont get me wrong, i wasnt implying that bugs shouldnt be filed ... i was 
addressing the incorrect idea that it isnt a valid QA issue unless a user 
experiences it and complains via bugzilla
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list