From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-17073-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 16210 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2004 18:14:37 +0000
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197)
by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Nov 2004 18:14:37 +0000
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org)
by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41)
id 1COghR-0000CN-B2
for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:14:37 +0000
Received: (qmail 28980 invoked by uid 89); 1 Nov 2004 18:14:30 +0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 32441 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2004 18:14:30 +0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
b=lJzRnWkPegtVrnjcnBJcwcBiLpAlluNOgxg2qFzi3p9Mz2tv6aKFI0WpUtkPGub8CuoKMbCh9R6Uj8BJM2r012l7jmYOBHSC1WRfFUCe/e+YAOEj4cFa4iJFPSCTvifUiLoI7T/sjQLKk2ZCbKbC99v3u9YyMueqK/e2qXuYlQU=
Message-ID: <921ad39e04110110143a418d68@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:14:30 +0000
From: Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <20041031133603.56b2addd@snowdrop.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20041030145454.92C1524ABB@orm.localnet>
<1099214725.17978.20.camel@sponge.fungus>
<921ad39e04103103187bf99f0c@mail.gmail.com>
<20041031133603.56b2addd@snowdrop.home>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] aging ebuilds with unstable keywords
X-Archives-Salt: 967ae304-bef9-479e-a758-eecb0f2e5daf
X-Archives-Hash: c846022ee2cb6d32b7515ceac6d143f9
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:36:03 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:18:33 +0000 Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> | Would make a very nice QA measure. Any outdated/broken ebuild could be
> | auto reported to bugzilla and removed in 72 hours if no responce.
>
> Eh? Huh? By "QA measure" you mean "ways of making loads of QA problems"?
You know better, but why would this cause QA problems? -- if
maintainer disappeared and the package just sits there for years,
hell, let it be removed. Otherwise, a maintainer can just reply to bug
report and not be asked about it again.
> | I think gentoo really needs QA measures of this sort. Like in debian,
> | packages get moved up from unstable to testing automatically if no
> | critical reports were made for 2 weeks.
>
> We've already discussed over and over why we can't do this. It would be
> a QA nightmare.
ok, that would be a QA nightmare. I'm just giving an example of how
another popular distribution automates some of their QA (this example
shows how not to do it though).
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list