From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O4w7J-0007Vj-S0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:06:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 76A47E08C1 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EC6E0883 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:19:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (smer.tone.cz [89.250.247.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93391B403E for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:19:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BD03EC0.6050700@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:19:12 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSBDaHbDoXRhbA==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100412 Thunderbird/3.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-qa] Project layout (what should we do) References: <4BD02607.3060301@gentoo.org> <4BD037D0.8030205@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4BD037D0.8030205@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 9c5dccfb-b957-4bb4-a9ae-c5a75819fc45 X-Archives-Hash: e419bd8a1b3873acc18ffdf2d22236cb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dne 22.4.2010 13:49, Samuli Suominen napsal(a): > On 04/22/2010 01:33 PM, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: >> I have this idea of what areas we as QA should work: >> >> [treecleaners] >> Guys responsible for maintaining profiles and removing packages that >> in long-term fails to meet up QA standards. >=20 > treecleaners is mostly for maintainer-needed@ packages, and for bugs > where maintainer has ACK'd the removal (or there has been a general > consensus the package is no good). so that's the ebuild aspect. >=20 > profiles in other hand have been responsibility of the release@ team, > but since that hasn't lately been really the case... qa@ has been takin= g > care of it. >=20 > my point being: what does treecleaners have to do with profiles? >=20 Well basicaly i was not sure under what part it fits best. And i usually cleanup stuff there when i do treecleaning thus i placed it under them. Basicaly only thing relevant to the outsider should be "QA is working on profiles" and not really care what subproject is working on it. The leveling i wrote here is just for some visual split to see where we need to get "recruits" :] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkvQPsAACgkQHB6c3gNBRYc0dQCgrDcPiL4wkPBeh+kYoi7NdZ2M 8GEAnjNxeHCXjoF9WaWjO7z0VvqVbB7M =3DYnPI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----