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 1NPGrt-0001BI-Bx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:46:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98221E092F; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:46:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net (vms173017pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.17]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F06E092F for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:46:30 +0000 (UTC) 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 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([96.245.54.62]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KVD0097FADHCDEB@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:46:30 -0600 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E60E7175A826 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:46:28 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <4B38C4C4.90306@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:46:28 -0500 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Thunderbird/3.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA Documentation References: <4B283085.4070103@gentoo.org> <20091220144343.GA840@gentoo.org> <4B37EAB9.3020307@gentoo.org> <4B381B6D.8070208@gentoo.org> <4B38953E.8090309@gentoo.org> In-reply-to: <4B38953E.8090309@gentoo.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b9a9a2c1-a08f-4ba5-8196-75c865bcb0c6 X-Archives-Hash: 8d4ddaf780a2110340da84d3351521b4 On 12/28/2009 06:23 AM, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > we should ENFORCE it, not just fill bugs about it, because mostly peopl= e > tend to ignore that things. > Agreed, although some presumption of innocence should be assumed. If a=20 dev is ignoring repoman output that is a fairly big violation, but if a=20 dev missed that compiling under some strange set of circumstances or=20 combination of use flags causes a problem, well, that's a bug that needs=20 to be fixed. There were some --as-needed issues detected by the=20 tinderbox that only show up when you use a modified gcc profile, for=20 example. That doesn't mean they're not worth fixing, but we shouldn't=20 punish people for that stuff. I don't think the QA team has an issue with mistakes (not that I can=20 really speak for them) - their main frustration is probably when bugs=20 get filed and then get ignored. Expecting people to resolve bugs in a=20 week for minor issues is probably asking a bit much, but if a dev has 14=20 packages with 25 open bugs each that are six months old that is probably=20 a cause for concern that should be escalated to devrel. On the other hand, some allowance for brain-dead upstream tactics should=20 be made. I'd consider embedded libraries a QA issue, but if we made=20 that a stern policy we'd never see chromium in the tree for quite a long=20 time. I'm sure the guys maintaining that would love to try to patch out=20 as much of the embedded stuff as they can, but they've got a LOT of work=20 to do due to the way it was written. I'm not sure that simply banning=20 chromium from the tree is the right approach either as long as upstream=20 deals with the inevitable security issues when they come up.