| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 8/12/2014 9:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
[snip] |
| 6 |
> I don't have a problem with QA recommending new tree policies, but |
| 7 |
> if they're going to do this the QA team ought to first ensure that |
| 8 |
> the team agrees (however they want to govern that), and then |
| 9 |
> communicate the policy before implementing it. I'd also implement |
| 10 |
> it in documentation before doing so in repoman, otherwise we're |
| 11 |
> going to have a repoman full of 800 rules whose origin is a |
| 12 |
> mystery. I'm fine with QA policies going into effect by default, |
| 13 |
> but communicating them allows objections to be raised and an |
| 14 |
> appeal made to Council if necessary before we get too far along. |
| 15 |
> This isn't just about due process - it is hard for developers to |
| 16 |
> even comply with a policy they are unaware of. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Rich |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
This isn't a QA policy, was not run by us as far as I can tell, and I |
| 21 |
don't know where it came from or why it was added. +1 for revert, if |
| 22 |
people want to run this by Council or QA later and actually get an |
| 23 |
official decision we can talk about putting it back, but for now it's |
| 24 |
generating a lot of noise for no real benefit. It's useless checks |
| 25 |
like this that make people ignore repoman warnings. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Chris Reffett |
| 28 |
QA Team Lead |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlPqXvAACgkQ23laikJhg1QvTQCffjAZYIzBGBRlp1l/y6iydzTQ |
| 33 |
3d0An12lbTbzr7nWe37qtoay7ktWUAs6 |
| 34 |
=6c3E |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives