From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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 Reply-To: Roman Gaufman To: Ciaran McCreesh 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 wrote: > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:18:33 +0000 Roman Gaufman > 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 Any outdated/broken ebuild could be 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