| 1 |
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 14:36:37 +0100 |
| 2 |
Amy Liffey <amynka@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hello folks, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I apologize to everyone for sending this proposal before it was |
| 7 |
> finished. It was not voted on by the QA team hence it was not an |
| 8 |
> official proposal by the QA team. There was probably some |
| 9 |
> misunderstanding in communication. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> After we finish the official draft and it is accepted by QA team |
| 12 |
> members, we will be very happy to accept comments on the mailing list |
| 13 |
> in the future. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
During that drafting process, please clarify how this changes and |
| 16 |
differs from the current GLEP48 wording and if the glep needs to be |
| 17 |
updated: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team may |
| 20 |
request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights. |
| 21 |
Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to |
| 22 |
Comrel. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Alexis. |
Archives