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 B20F71389E2 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:08:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A3123E089A; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 922C0E0886 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:08:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6277734053C for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <548192EB.7050109@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:11:39 -0500 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.0 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] References: <1417777160.6787.7.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1417777160.6787.7.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7ad729a4-2284-4b20-89f5-7d0f3ec86be5 X-Archives-Hash: f5ac54b1a14b4162c41c66dff644296e On 12/05/14 05:59, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Hi! > > We found out that pulseaudio ebuild was modified by QA without QA > talking to the maintainers (gnome team) and without considering/updating > the relevant bugzilla issue at > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=519530 > > In that link it's explained a bit more why the ebuild was written in > that way and the problems we try to avoid. We have then hardmasked that > version until it's discussed THERE how to handle that situations. > > And would really appreciate that next time we are even notified about a > change is going to be committed and don't need to see it in > packages.gentoo.org (well, in my case I am not all the time on IRC... > but I read the mail often and, also, Gilles and Leio can also be > contacted on IRC. You can also simply send a mail to the alias and give > us at least some days of timeout). > > Thanks a lot > > I don't know the policy (I will read the relevant docs later) but its seems to me to make good sense that, if it is not an emergency (ie the tree is broken), that QA first inform the maintainer in a bug report which can then be peer reviewed. QA can make mistakes (as in this case) and that's okay if there is discussion. If it is an emergency, then I would think QA should take the action of least interference to unbreak the tree. Bikeshed time ... -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA