From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O4vBJ-00084W-Lx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:06:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 443D8E091A for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:06:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6339DE0732 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [83.146.207.236] (dyn-207-236-dsl.vsp.fi [83.146.207.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CAA91B403E for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:49:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BD037D0.8030205@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:49:36 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100410 Thunderbird/3.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-qa] Project layout (what should we do) References: <4BD02607.3060301@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4BD02607.3060301@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 718a5759-a87d-492e-9133-60ff9229441b X-Archives-Hash: 541b220164062d362e6ea4c7de8e10ff On 04/22/2010 01:33 PM, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > I have this idea of what areas we as QA should work: >=20 > [treecleaners] > Guys responsible for maintaining profiles and removing packages that > in long-term fails to meet up QA standards. treecleaners is mostly for maintainer-needed@ packages, and for bugs where maintainer has ACK'd the removal (or there has been a general consensus the package is no good). so that's the ebuild aspect. profiles in other hand have been responsibility of the release@ team, but since that hasn't lately been really the case... qa@ has been taking care of it. my point being: what does treecleaners have to do with profiles?