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 1FEDao-0004OD-Hg for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:45:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1SMhtnY018268; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:43:55 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1SMg0U4008275 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:42:00 GMT Received: from dslb-084-063-015-092.pools.arcor-ip.net ([84.63.15.92] helo=[10.0.0.13]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1FEDYD-0007vB-J0 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:42:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4404CB49.2080402@gentoo.org> References: <20060227213321.7ee405ec@snowdrop.home> <200602281539.43661.vapier@gentoo.org> <905929917.20060228220239@gentoo.org> <200602281631.37594.vapier@gentoo.org> <20060228215040.GL11818@toucan.gentoo.org> <4404CB49.2080402@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Q2gkT41QHhwrH2l1OSqU" Organization: Gentoo Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:34 +0100 Message-Id: <1141166554.7047.19.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 X-Archives-Salt: ffb87160-91bc-4369-9fbf-9cdc04b9f223 X-Archives-Hash: 4d611a88125d46d8aca5ef748ee0ed87 --=-Q2gkT41QHhwrH2l1OSqU Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: > So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA > team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead > follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to > -dev asking for comments first? Does QA trump, or does the maintainer > trump when it comes to disputes? I think the QA team is free to classify QA bugs, but any changes should be pushed to the -dev ML just so that everyone is aware what is happening. It's a bit, well, annoying if QA decides that we have to use the Wrong Bracing Style in eclasses and files 50 bugs for cosmetic fixes while there are ebuilds doing evil things, but if there's a warning ("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal of mkdir in global scope") I can live with that. Also QA should not just decide on something without a documented explanation - it will erode their credibility as it is seen as a random process unless there is documentation. In case of dispute in general QA should be stronger than a single maintainer, but combined with the fact that QA also creates policy that would be a bit tricky. Disputes should be escalated along the normal devrel dispute lines I think, just think of QA as another herd/project and that mostly makes sense :-) QA is still new, so the communication channels might not be perfect- I hope everybody manages to cooperate so that Gentoo is the least buggy distro of them all when 2006.1 comes out ;-) Patrick --=20 Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move --=-Q2gkT41QHhwrH2l1OSqU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEBNHaqER3hOUoZM4RAnDPAJ4pTboGwDkaWbjWWrSefEjT0BcsEwCfanbF lkwFEyH2FZTOcNwFJJZ5CGE= =0HeA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Q2gkT41QHhwrH2l1OSqU-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list