Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org>]

On 11/05/14 21:33, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:06:13 +0300
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> It should have been...
>>
>> "OK, nothing is broken here, nothing for qa@ to do, looks like
>> ssuominen did everything for us."
> That's exactly what I did; having him talk to you first, I did not
> state anything to be broken or that the QA team must do something.
>
> As to whether what you did is alright to the maintainer, that depends
> on your and the arch team's response; given you override both of them on
> a package that you don't maintain, I can't just make a bold claim that
> "did everything for us" to be OK. It really depends on the motives...

stable was broken, and now it isn't, everything was done properly,
what more motive you need?

>
>> Instead if you insisted on mangling the issue and shoving the policies
>> up in the face,
> No, I quoted the documentation for the case at hand.
>
>> and when you were pointed out the major arches leads have given an
>> exception for stabilizing packages, you didn't apology for the waste
>> of time, instead, you continued with mangling the issue futher,
>> accomplishing nothing but wasting everyones valuable time.
> That exception does not apply to this case, I also get a whole backlog
> on IRC in return for my Comment #3; therefore, I continue to further
> clarify what is going on, because you were upset regarding kingtaco's rule.
>
> That rule is known to me as it has been told to me by hwoarang during
> my recruitment; you directly assumed me to not know that rule, as well
> as appear to use it in a context that the rule isn't applicable.

Then I can't possibly understand your reasoning to intervene on something
that doesn't concern you, or the QA team, in the first place, at all
Sort of makes this even worse

>
> I'm expecting apologies from you too, given the statements that I've
> quoted in the sub thread, it's a waste of valuable time to everyone
> involved, both you and me; so, I do apologize for trying to help out.

Help out?

Everything technical (and technical is the only thing that matters to
QA) had already
been done.
The time waste is still on-going, with amd64 and x86 unnecessarily on
the bug's CC list while they have
been already done.

So, instead of actually helping out, like filing a new bug for updating
the outdated devmanual text
regarding major arches stabilizations to reflect statements from their
leads, no help was received...

>
> You know me well enough to know that I'm not messing with your work,
> at least not intentionally; if you do see it, feel free to /query me.
>
> Please consider to apologize to me in return...
>

You can expect same tone from me here on out if you continue with
intervening on stuff with the QA badge
that has no relationship to QA at all, not really going to give an
apology for the tone either

- Samuli