From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBB6138247 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:45:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 82AB7E0AEB; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:45:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E964E0AD5 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [2.126.0.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hwoarang) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 457EA33F76A for ; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52BEF1ED.7060207@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:44:45 +0000 From: Markos Chandras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog References: <20131225095020.A91BE2004C@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <20131226132724.6b9477af@googlemail.com> <52BEEA2D.2020103@gentoo.org> <201312281644.39489.dilfridge@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201312281644.39489.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9f3e42a8-ce4f-4efe-8324-7969c80a1cdc X-Archives-Hash: 7c44c8dcd5480a249c313ff6f7441bbc On 12/28/2013 03:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > >>>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate, >>>> you do not file bugs, you just go and do stuff. >>> >>> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able >>> to address. You should raise this issue with them rather than >>> accusing each other on the lists. >> >> I completely agree with this. I feel that this thread is a sign that >> there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the >> developers that cause them. I read the entire thread and I still don't >> think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why. Would a >> private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations? > > Introducing repoman warnings deliberately is wrong. Point. > QA can do trivial fixes. Point. > > None of these two points needs any discussion. > Certainly, but look at the size and contents of this thread and now tell me if what you said is clear to everyone. It certainly isn't to the person who caused the problem so what I am saying is that maybe it's better first to communicate the problem with him before starting a public heated discussion. -- Regards, Markos Chandras