From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N7Woz-0002Zg-G4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:10:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E28F7E09DF; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net (vms173015pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.15]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB60BE09DF for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([96.245.54.62]) by vms173015.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KSU00137NL82KQ5@vms173015.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:10:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21922175A30B for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:10:20 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <4AF83EEB.3070202@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:10:19 -0500 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091031) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA is unimportant? References: <200911081910.35133.patrick@gentoo.org> <200911081324.47874.vapier@gentoo.org> <200911082008.35448.patrick@gentoo.org> <20091108192723.GB31601@aerie.halcy0n.com> <4AF76449.9020203@gentoo.org> <1257768532.20446.1350.camel@tablet> In-reply-to: <1257768532.20446.1350.camel@tablet> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 092d56de-617c-4e27-98a4-d8eacc0e7326 X-Archives-Hash: d1db2e3895a8cc728ce614d43d6454e1 Peter Volkov wrote: > 1. Our good non-formal policy "if developer touched anything he becames > responsible for that ebuild and should fix issues noticed" is sometimes > ignored. We see people reacting: you've noticed - you fix. I think such > attitude is unacceptable. Keep in mind the downside to such a policy is that people just ignore problems that are trivial to fix, because they don't have the time to go over the ebuild with a fine-toothed comb. Then, if people get their heads chewed off on -dev if they do miss something that lowers the motivation just a bit more. Sure, if a dev fixes an ebuild they should give it a once-over to make sure there are no major problems, and obviously they should do moderate testing to make sure it builds and works. However, if I spotted a minor problem with an ebuild that I could fix, and a major problem that I couldn't fix, chances are that I wouldn't touch it at all. Then the ebuild stays in the tree with both problems, instead of one fewer. I think it all boils down to "we're all in this together." If you see a problem try to fix it, and if you see somebody make a mistake try to help them out. While we do need policies, and policies do imply police, nobody likes the police, so let's try to make that work with the minimum in fuss. A good rule of thumb is whether a dev has left a situation better off or worse off than when they touched something, and in this case I'd have to say that we're better off. While the good can be the enemy of the best, sometimes the best can be the enemy of the good, and I think that sums up the current situation well.