Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1737 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 00:08 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 15:31 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:17 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:05:09 +0100 Maurice van der Pot
> > > <griffon26@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > | For instance, checking (for all arches, for all use flag combos) if
> > > | the dependencies are as stable or more stable (x86 > ~x86 > hard
> > > | masked) than  the thing depending on it.
> > > 
> > > Hasn't repoman been doing this correctly for a year or more now? I know
> > > it wasn't the case when I joined, but bug 24160 is long fixed...
> > 
> > What if we had a service that did this check plus other stuff repoman
> > doesn't count and report it to some web site that developers can look at
> > daily to see QA bugs? Maybe run it daily or every 6-12 hours? I think
> > someone mentioned something like that once.
> > 
> 
> I think it would be worth a lot more if it was mailed to the maintainer
> of the ebuild (and perhaps QA?), as it takes time and effort to wade
> through a list (like the been in ~ for x days list that we used to get).

How about both options? Some people prefer getting email reports, others
prefer just going to a website. I don't see how this could be a problem,
so why not offer both? :) Perhaps we should ask the author to rewrite
his proposed GLEP to be more of a QA monitoring system that devs could
use.

Just my random thoughts...

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]