From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5609E1381FA for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 15:35:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B73BE0B5E; Fri, 16 May 2014 15:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84A4E0B3E for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 15:34:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org ([94.226.51.153]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id 2fax1o01Q3JKcCE01faxZp; Fri, 16 May 2014 17:34:57 +0200 Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:34:37 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question Message-ID: <20140516173437.1620b0db@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org> <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> <2731252.LOkG5ql5OK@localhost> <536FE7C4.2090403@gentoo.org> <537481BE.1070609@gentoo.org> <5374A32B.9000805@gentoo.org> <53760525.9090300@gentoo.org> <20140516163658.435313d0@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/naYS1f38rG8kGdtXxBYfb8u"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 79c64063-28a5-4d68-a3f5-35e499c9800f X-Archives-Hash: f5323e67fbfab22edcf61f6388a15b31 --Sig_/naYS1f38rG8kGdtXxBYfb8u Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:07:46 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > [...] My point is just that when members of QA want to speak for QA, > they should say so. That is currently happening; therefore, why is this brought up here? > If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain with the commit comment > "update to newer EAPI" then I'm free to revert it if I consider the > change inappropriate (though obviously all devs should use discretion > when reverting anything). If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain > with the commit comment "QA Change: update to newer EAPI" then I'm not > free to revert the change without working with him, QA, or the > Council, whether I think my previous ebuild violated policy or not. QA commits that I do are prefixed with [QA], right from the start. > Likewise, if tomwij comments on a bug, "I don't think a tinderbox is > worth QA's time" then it should be taken as personal opinion. While you use it as an example, that quote has never been said; but yes, personal doubts / opinions / thoughts / ... are clearly expressed. > If he comments, "QA has reviewed this request and feels it is not > worth pursing at this time" then that should be taken as the voice of > QA until demonstrated otherwise. Verbally stating when it is QA is currently happening as well; it could be that that is not visible, given the limited amount of QA votes. --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/naYS1f38rG8kGdtXxBYfb8u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTdjANAAoJEPWZc8roOL/Q1dAH/A3+n9HWllJfRIedE7pTL+FC ZBYXPJ/3NQF8UAB1M90Ih+ovLWZ1HAMMS1SWpfmOiX8haPi74ytOI+3Oy8zVizfh i5jZ7H34IKzL/UzEjg3Y/SdXK4cmE27iXwab2xKPHVqKVRB1F1vWp4YzDWAT35gG bm8gHZDpYG1AHBUl14ZWuudUOTkU3FHotbLCB1FOetmbHkWyIN4Trr6IJw6yxPIX qhS2kRGYKeIsBLjfiEB0MWOi3MxVjAGnnSVoK50ADdc/4g5RJLFgqMtPDKM/7AD+ c5XogLr6YpxOLQLzrS7v78GkzKD+eRKcUkoLQT3iicNpvagxr+NgFL36ccQSa34= =jvB6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/naYS1f38rG8kGdtXxBYfb8u--