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 F22FD1381FA for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 23:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 16B47E0946; Sat, 10 May 2014 23:30:04 +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 74210E093A for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 23:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localnet (unknown [114.91.164.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36BFA33FDA9 for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 23:30:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 07:29:59 +0800 Message-ID: <2731252.LOkG5ql5OK@localhost> User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.13.1-gentoo; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> References: <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org> <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: f2529e97-e111-49a9-89d4-a7dbebca51ec X-Archives-Hash: add1a70c87d4c081539bedeb1880ffcb On Saturday 10 May 2014 12:46:31 hasufell wrote: > Samuli Suominen: > > On 09/05/14 21:37, Tom Wijsman wrote: > >>> It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of > >>> each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk" > >>> possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use. > >> > >> So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no results. > > > > I'm not so sure, it seems QA is picking policies as per what some loud > > people on the ML say as opposed to giving overwhelming technical arguments > > their proper weight > > Well, if QA team members confuses "bugs" with "bug reports" and say they > don't want to do actual work (aka tinderbox), because it would cause > more "bugs", then I have serious doubts about their technical > understanding of certain issues. It's not about "want", it's about having the resources (mostly time) to do so. If you wish to experience that for yourself - just build everything (I can give you a script to do so), and then triage bugs. It's great fun for the first few hundred failures :)