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 1FE22m-0003lT-NB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:25:25 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1SAMBMq027347; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:22:11 GMT Received: from callisto.cs.kun.nl (callisto.cs.kun.nl [131.174.33.75]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1SAK8HP018765 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:20:08 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by callisto.cs.kun.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B762E8216 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:23 +0100 (CET) From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:23 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <44032D3E.5020500@gentoo.org> <20060227171519.5da0e329@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20060227171519.5da0e329@snowdrop.home> X-Face: #Lb+'V@sGJ;ptgo5}V"W+5OCoo{LZv;bh,s,`WKLi/J)ed1_$0;6X<=?utf-8?q?700LVV/=3BLqPhiDP=5E=0A=09=27f=5Dfnv?=@%6M8\'HR1t=aFx;ePfp{ZQoBe+e)JOQ8T5*(_;mHY+cltLGq<;@$Y,=?utf-8?q?O=5C=24=0A=09Tm=23G6M?=,g![Q62J{na*S9d;R[^8pc%u\aiLqU@`kJtYl"^6pxdW 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3552081.DaV9gIpSWv"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200602281121.23586.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c77b1739-3d90-4390-8816-778d0bb0a7bf X-Archives-Hash: df15a5dc514b22dea7420289ef750b27 --nextPart3552081.DaV9gIpSWv Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 27 February 2006 18:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600 Lance Albertson > > wrote: > | > So if the maintainer sticks SANDBOX_DISABLE=3D"1" rm -fr / in global > | > scope and refuses to move it, QA will have to get council approval > | > to fix it? > | > | Use some common sense when showing an example please. We all know > | that something that stupid needs to be delt with quickly. > > If we all recognise that level of stupidity, please explain how the > heck this got into the tree: > > http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/sys-apps/bootstrap >_cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=3D1.1&content-type=3Dtext/plain Probably because although it isn't a good ebuild it still works and does=20 not violate the sandbox. While it does things in the wrong way/place it=20 does not do the wrong things. I do not think that anyone would argue against QA (or other developers)=20 fixing urgent big tree breakages. (and rm -rf / would certainly qualify).=20 What I see as the argument is that QA should show a degree of flexibility=20 in it's policies, and not just enforce because of the policy. This=20 especially in those cases where there is no way to provide the ebuild=20 without breaking policy, or doing so would mean a greater inconvenience=20 to the users. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart3552081.DaV9gIpSWv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEBCQjbKx5DBjWFdsRAii2AJwMxN1GjN09YfhWftMJLq6MaKYrpQCfcKV3 rOT4aulvgV9EpcO/0OZh6uk= =Tt4G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3552081.DaV9gIpSWv-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list