| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Dne 22.4.2010 13:49, Samuli Suominen napsal(a): |
| 5 |
> On 04/22/2010 01:33 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 6 |
>> I have this idea of what areas we as QA should work: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> [treecleaners] |
| 9 |
>> Guys responsible for maintaining profiles and removing packages that |
| 10 |
>> in long-term fails to meet up QA standards. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> treecleaners is mostly for maintainer-needed@ packages, and for bugs |
| 13 |
> where maintainer has ACK'd the removal (or there has been a general |
| 14 |
> consensus the package is no good). so that's the ebuild aspect. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> profiles in other hand have been responsibility of the release@ team, |
| 17 |
> but since that hasn't lately been really the case... qa@ has been taking |
| 18 |
> care of it. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> my point being: what does treecleaners have to do with profiles? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
Well basicaly i was not sure under what part it fits best. |
| 23 |
And i usually cleanup stuff there when i do treecleaning thus i placed |
| 24 |
it under them. Basicaly only thing relevant to the outsider should be |
| 25 |
"QA is working on profiles" and not really care what subproject is |
| 26 |
working on it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The leveling i wrote here is just for some visual split to see where we |
| 29 |
need to get "recruits" :] |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkvQPsAACgkQHB6c3gNBRYc0dQCgrDcPiL4wkPBeh+kYoi7NdZ2M |
| 35 |
8GEAnjNxeHCXjoF9WaWjO7z0VvqVbB7M |
| 36 |
=YnPI |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives