| 1 |
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 01:50 pm, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT] |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > > I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one |
| 6 |
> > > devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical |
| 7 |
> > > policies (not using repoman, repeatedly breaking sections of the tree, |
| 8 |
> > > etcetera) that enforcement should be left up to the appropriate |
| 9 |
> > > managers, not devrel. The argument was that devrel devs are often not |
| 10 |
> > > experts in the technical aspects, so it's hard for them to adjudicate |
| 11 |
> > > effectively. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I should also mention that I'm not advocating this interpretation. I'd |
| 14 |
> > much prefer that devrel's scope encompass such technical issues. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'd prefer the QA project/herd handle this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
the QA team tracks when something goes wrong and makes sure that people are |
| 19 |
educated on what they did wrong ... so in that aspect they are enforcing |
| 20 |
policy by telling the dev to stop screwing up |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> They deal in hauling in devs, dealing with idiot |
| 23 |
> devs, and chucking awol devs; I really don't see how QA falls under |
| 24 |
> them beyond potentially the punitive aspect of QA having someone's cvs |
| 25 |
> turned off for continually screwing up (willingly or otherwise). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
devrel is introduced as a last resort if the dev ignores the QA team |
| 28 |
-mike |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives