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 4.62) (envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-23783-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1HoeD2-0004PU-Jd for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:31:53 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4HBU9Ds002748; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:30:09 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4HBQkVJ030067 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:26:49 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289018D35A for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:35:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12295-03 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:35:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from snowflake (unknown [62.6.163.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0988D305 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:35:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:23:50 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] 'stricter' FEATURE and "poor programming practices" notice Message-ID: <20070517122350.6cd95be9@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <1179400321.5388.5.camel@ip6-localhost> References: <1179400321.5388.5.camel@ip6-localhost> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.2 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_gBRNPW.2MNVB6xItoEQy0h7; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ferdyx.org X-Archives-Salt: 05bc3c1c-05ac-4a2f-87c9-61e5d7c18da3 X-Archives-Hash: 44c75b032ada6c9cda339b5bdbab0212 --Sig_gBRNPW.2MNVB6xItoEQy0h7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 17 May 2007 13:12:01 +0200 Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org> wrote: > My view is that if this is a QA notice then, if a package doesn't > emerge because of it, it is a Gentoo QA bug and package maintainers > should be responsible for fixing it.=20 Gentoo should not be applying patches simply to fix what certain people consider to be 'poor programming practises', since such practices are not in themselves bugs. Under certain circumstances it's appropriate to notify upstream about such issues, but be aware that upstream may not take kindly to external attempts to impose arbitrary coding standards if there is no actual problem. In cases where those QA checks reveal a genuine bug, upstream should of course be notified and the bug should be fixed. When notifying upstream, avoid terms like 'poor programming' and stick to explaining the actual bug. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_gBRNPW.2MNVB6xItoEQy0h7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGTDtG96zL6DUtXhERAlwpAJ9I8VMJXuw6aeVGD3lMlbvXeZUBoQCgpxJE fOlZlxUb1ktdp3381gnHKO0= =HqnU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_gBRNPW.2MNVB6xItoEQy0h7-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list