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 3F4C3138247 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:35:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85823E0B63; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:35:47 +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 95648E09C1 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-4db0e372.pool.mediaWays.net [77.176.227.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34D2B33F65D; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:35:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52BF19FE.3000807@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 19:35:42 +0100 From: hasufell 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: Markos Chandras CC: 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> <52BEF1ED.7060207@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <52BEF1ED.7060207@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 29d02f44-0b9a-43b3-b808-b16a53dc462e X-Archives-Hash: 6604b33aa4103ad6fd0d8abea6111e4f On 12/28/2013 04:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > 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. > If you read the whole thread, you would know that I did communicate privately beforehand. As in 90% of the cases I guess it was still a mistake to post (this) on dev ML. I definitely do not need your help to address this problem, so please don't feed this thread any further.