| 1 |
On 05/10/2014 08:12 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El sáb, 10-05-2014 a las 17:50 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió: |
| 3 |
> [...] |
| 4 |
>> As for build failures; that boils down to either the maintainer fixing |
| 5 |
>> it as it is their problem, treecleaners cleaning it (but even they have |
| 6 |
>> a long backlog) or someone that is interested to fix it. But in no way |
| 7 |
>> it is QA's problem; as our task is Quality Assurance, which doesn't* |
| 8 |
>> imply fixing maintainer's problems (but does imply m-n / cleaning it). |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> * We can try to help to some extent. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> At least from my point of view (as member or treecleaners), I would |
| 14 |
> welcome the tinderbox as would help to detect more broken packages, some |
| 15 |
> of them really old and that are not going to be fixed but, as nobody |
| 16 |
> uses them, they are broken for a long time without noticing. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
While this is true, it's is not an immediate problem. If a package is |
| 21 |
terribly broken, but nobody uses it, then all it does is to occupy a few |
| 22 |
KB of cvs space. It is a problem, but not a problem we need to be |
| 23 |
nervous about. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
Markos Chandras |
Archives