From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FDajg-0002JC-V9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:15:53 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1R5F6o2002406; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:15:07 GMT Received: from skinny.southernlinux.net (ns2.rednecks.net [64.192.52.5]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1R5D9Jj021879 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:13:09 GMT Received: (qmail 19649 invoked by uid 210); 27 Feb 2006 00:13:01 -0500 Received: from 10.99.99.199 by skinny (envelope-from <solar@gentoo.org>, uid 201) with qmail-scanner-1.25st (clamdscan: 0.88/1301. f-prot: 4.4.2/3.14.11. spamassassin: 3.1.0. perlscan: 1.25st. Clear:RC:1(10.99.99.199):. Processed in 0.062957 secs); 27 Feb 2006 05:13:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.99.99.199?) (10.99.99.199) by 0 with SMTP; 27 Feb 2006 00:13:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role From: Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4402732A.6050707@gentoo.org> References: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <20060226231121.GB11930@dogmatix.willow.local> <20060226232147.37349bc2@snowdrop.home> <20060226233558.GD11930@dogmatix.willow.local> <20060227000929.GC17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <440247DE.5010902@gentoo.org> <20060227003541.GF17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <44025B90.3080208@gentoo.org> <20060227021037.GH17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <4402732A.6050707@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:13:07 -0500 Message-Id: <1141017187.4846.27.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: da0edf21-af81-4c8f-8f11-6d7e96c8457c X-Archives-Hash: 7de2e958ad1c585d9fad62d541735eca On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 19:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Mark Loeser wrote: > > Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> said: > >> The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages, > >> and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in > >> the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else. > > > > I think it really depends on the situation, but in general I disagree > > that something should be left in a state that the QA team finds > > questionable/broken. It should be a very rare occurence that this comes > > up, since we don't really want to override what the maintainer says, but > > I think the QA team should have this right in extreme circumstances. > > So if QA thinks one way is right, and the package maintainer thinks > another way is right, you say QA always trumps? > > I'm looking at this as "innocent until proven guilty" versus "guilty > until proven innocent." When parties are in disagreement, the _current_ > situation should stand until the council (or the two groups in question) > resolves it. That assumes lack of extenuating circumstances such as > security vulnerabilities or major tree breakage. The devs asked for a council. A council was elected. The council decided that QA trumps devs. If anybody has a problem with that they are free to object at the next council meeting. -- Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list