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 B5CA91381FA for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 21:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD349E0A72; Sun, 11 May 2014 21:12:44 +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 2A5F2E0A65 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 21:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (unknown [96.44.189.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B63D33FB39 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 21:12:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <536FE7C4.2090403@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 21:12:36 +0000 From: hasufell 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 References: <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org> <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> <2731252.LOkG5ql5OK@localhost> In-Reply-To: <2731252.LOkG5ql5OK@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 007813d1-b355-4e29-8a0b-6f48e86c4097 X-Archives-Hash: 4778531a80457083600e497b7f6b53c8 Patrick Lauer: > 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 :) > I hear you. Anyway, last time I spoke with the QA lead, he said that QA has currently enough manpower. It's a little bit confusing. What I am pissed about are the arguments other people have given (not you), not the missing tinderbox... really. I appreciate every hour people put in gentoo. It isn't about "you didn't get enough stuff done", at all. It is about some comments that reveal the way QA (or some parts of it) thinks about itself. Nothing more, nothing less. Something about that needs to change, IMO. And I don't necessarily mean a regrouping of members or something similar. We already tried that, didn't we? Let's not make it a habit. It's sad that you have to yell out that loud before people actually listen. But the fact is... you have to. In the end, the blame is on the guy who yelled, not on the people who didn't listen, because CoC doesn't really cover the latter.