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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <patrick@gentoo.org>
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: <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
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