| 1 |
On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:07:46 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> [...] My point is just that when members of QA want to speak for QA, |
| 5 |
> they should say so. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That is currently happening; therefore, why is this brought up here? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain with the commit comment |
| 10 |
> "update to newer EAPI" then I'm free to revert it if I consider the |
| 11 |
> change inappropriate (though obviously all devs should use discretion |
| 12 |
> when reverting anything). If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain |
| 13 |
> with the commit comment "QA Change: update to newer EAPI" then I'm not |
| 14 |
> free to revert the change without working with him, QA, or the |
| 15 |
> Council, whether I think my previous ebuild violated policy or not. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
QA commits that I do are prefixed with [QA], right from the start. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Likewise, if tomwij comments on a bug, "I don't think a tinderbox is |
| 20 |
> worth QA's time" then it should be taken as personal opinion. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
While you use it as an example, that quote has never been said; but |
| 23 |
yes, personal doubts / opinions / thoughts / ... are clearly expressed. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> If he comments, "QA has reviewed this request and feels it is not |
| 26 |
> worth pursing at this time" then that should be taken as the voice of |
| 27 |
> QA until demonstrated otherwise. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Verbally stating when it is QA is currently happening as well; it could |
| 30 |
be that that is not visible, given the limited amount of QA votes. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
With kind regards, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 36 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 39 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 40 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives