| 1 |
On 11/05/14 21:33, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:06:13 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> It should have been... |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> "OK, nothing is broken here, nothing for qa@ to do, looks like |
| 8 |
>> ssuominen did everything for us." |
| 9 |
> That's exactly what I did; having him talk to you first, I did not |
| 10 |
> state anything to be broken or that the QA team must do something. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> As to whether what you did is alright to the maintainer, that depends |
| 13 |
> on your and the arch team's response; given you override both of them on |
| 14 |
> a package that you don't maintain, I can't just make a bold claim that |
| 15 |
> "did everything for us" to be OK. It really depends on the motives... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
stable was broken, and now it isn't, everything was done properly, |
| 18 |
what more motive you need? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> Instead if you insisted on mangling the issue and shoving the policies |
| 22 |
>> up in the face, |
| 23 |
> No, I quoted the documentation for the case at hand. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>> and when you were pointed out the major arches leads have given an |
| 26 |
>> exception for stabilizing packages, you didn't apology for the waste |
| 27 |
>> of time, instead, you continued with mangling the issue futher, |
| 28 |
>> accomplishing nothing but wasting everyones valuable time. |
| 29 |
> That exception does not apply to this case, I also get a whole backlog |
| 30 |
> on IRC in return for my Comment #3; therefore, I continue to further |
| 31 |
> clarify what is going on, because you were upset regarding kingtaco's rule. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> That rule is known to me as it has been told to me by hwoarang during |
| 34 |
> my recruitment; you directly assumed me to not know that rule, as well |
| 35 |
> as appear to use it in a context that the rule isn't applicable. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Then I can't possibly understand your reasoning to intervene on something |
| 38 |
that doesn't concern you, or the QA team, in the first place, at all |
| 39 |
Sort of makes this even worse |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> I'm expecting apologies from you too, given the statements that I've |
| 43 |
> quoted in the sub thread, it's a waste of valuable time to everyone |
| 44 |
> involved, both you and me; so, I do apologize for trying to help out. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Help out? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Everything technical (and technical is the only thing that matters to |
| 49 |
QA) had already |
| 50 |
been done. |
| 51 |
The time waste is still on-going, with amd64 and x86 unnecessarily on |
| 52 |
the bug's CC list while they have |
| 53 |
been already done. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
So, instead of actually helping out, like filing a new bug for updating |
| 56 |
the outdated devmanual text |
| 57 |
regarding major arches stabilizations to reflect statements from their |
| 58 |
leads, no help was received... |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> You know me well enough to know that I'm not messing with your work, |
| 62 |
> at least not intentionally; if you do see it, feel free to /query me. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> Please consider to apologize to me in return... |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
You can expect same tone from me here on out if you continue with |
| 68 |
intervening on stuff with the QA badge |
| 69 |
that has no relationship to QA at all, not really going to give an |
| 70 |
apology for the tone either |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
- Samuli |
Archives