Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Spider <spider@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] QA / Bugs
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:22:09
Message-Id: 20031128152202.39e6f4d4.spider@gentoo.org
1 Okay folks,
2 This is just a small note to follow up on the "broken builds ahead"
3 thread. I've started to file a number of bugs now, overloading Mr Bones
4 who deals with getting them to the right person (thanks ;).
5
6 I'm not going fullscale Q-A Right now, thats too much. So far I've
7 done some basic checking on gtk / gtk2 USE flag, and then the
8 "gnome-base/gnome" dependencies. I'm following this with a fast, dirty
9 and manual review of a lot of builds, starting at request by tseng and
10 lisa.
11
12 As it looks, I'm aiming to file bugs at all of you. Most of theese bugs
13 are so darn simple I would fix them myself in a faster pace than it
14 takes to solve them. But you'd keep making the same mistakes. This is
15 more a QA of developers, who seems to have been sloppy. (un-reviewed
16 user-submitted ebuilds?)
17
18 So, those who know what I'm working with/ looking at (ciaranm, tseng,
19 others) are welcome to head on and file bugs with me. The rest of you,
20 please -look at- the bugs filed ( 34553 is a good starting point ) But
21 don't resolv others bugs unless you've been asked to here.
22
23 Normally I'm all for solving bugs for others, if its done right. This
24 time I'm against it since I don't want developers who are working with
25 this to make the same mistakes again.
26
27
28 Over, out.
29 //Spider
30 --
31 begin .signature
32 This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
33 See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
34 end