On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:16:54 +0100
Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:

> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who
> > > do not.
> > 
> > We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is
> > optional. :)
> 
> Policies don't enforce quality, people enforce quality.

Well, we have policy [1] stating that QA can enforce quality until
overridden by a decision by the Council; so, to be fair, there are
even more parties involved than just the policy. Which doesn't change
the point; we can enforce quality, thus frustration is optional. :)

> And doing that is quickly frustrating.

There seems to be a lack of frustration in my experience as a QA
member; I care about quality by helping people fix breakage, this gives
me a feeling of accomplishment instead of a feeling of frustration.

> If enforcing quality would be a purely mechanical task there wouldn't
> be the same need for people, which would be ideal. But I think we're
> some ways away from that still.

We have (Auto)RepoMan and it improves as we speak; we are rather quite
close to it, making RepoMan warnings fatal is just a step away. Given
there is a lack of frustration, why should we do that? It could cause
more frustration than what it is trying to fix. Interesting thought...

Could we return back to the original subject of this thread?

 [1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48

      "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does
      not break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council
      meeting. The package should be dealt with per QA's request until
      such a time that a decision is made by the council."

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D