On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 19:44 -0600, Daniel Goller wrote: > what is unprofessional is that we acknowledge that poor QA can lead to > breakage that is hard to resolve if one is not a dev with access to all > previous versions.
viewcvs... everyone has access to it. > i think it is unprofessional to acknowledge that it can happen and to > reply "then they file a bug" when it could be avoided before hand No. Breakage is a bug. Period. Now, the fact that it could have been prevented or not does not change the FACT that breakage is a bug. You seem to be confusing QA pre-release with problems encountered after release. > it is not much more professional (albeit helpful on the technical side) > to make a suggestion and right out say "but i will not do it" which > again shows no care for what happens to the users You're talking about SpanKY and you have "professional" in the same sentence. You haven't been here long, have you? :P > wolf said proper QA would avoid what i outlined, and it would, but we > are all humans, and noone is perfect, all i am after is a safety net Versioned eclasses, as I said and you so magnificently twisted my words to fit your ideas of what you think I said, will not resolve this problem. Bad quality is bad quality, no matter how many versions you stick on it. > kind of like building a nuclear reactor with the rods pulled out from > top, so in case of power loss they will sink into the core instead of > allowing a tschernobil style meltdown (yes im saying we are building a > core with rods pulled out from bottom, for analogy sake) Actually, we're building a nuclear core, and you're discussing the pounds per square inch of force in your latest potato gun. There is absolutely no correlation, yet you're trying to make one. As I said before, bad QA is bad QA. No amount of versioning will solve this. I am only repeating this because I want to make it very clear what I mean and not to have my words twisted. BAD QA IS BAD QA AND NO AMOUNT OF VERSIONING WILL FIX THAT. > it was not my intention to say this is how it is done, my intention was > to talk about versioned eclasses, while i only achieved to have people > pick on an example, if anything, this thread was helpful to choose topic > and initial post more wisely in the future > > it should allow me to avoid misunderstandings and keep it closer to the > issue, it will be asking for input on how it could be achieved, rather > than sounding like i had a soultion i wish to push > > and my summarizing came from the thread overall sounding like noone > cares that it can happen, and that something should be done to minimize > the risk, that i find unprofessional, to toy with a users system, cause > an eclass that can be used across many archs is not tested first, but > shoved into the tree instead, and please correct me if i am wrong, > stable gcc-3.3.5-r1 inherits toolchain.eclass too, now if it is supposed > (lets pretend for example sake) to be that it works entirely independent > on gcc-3.3 than on gcc-3.4 i could still respond, that nothing was > supposed to change for gcc-3.4, so how do we know it didnt affect > gcc-3.3.5 too? then we are facing an eclass change affecting ~arch and > arch users, which in my eyes is not professional What? I'm sorry, but I had a real hard time following that paragraph. > im not needing people to agree with me to find them professional, i just > would like to see people take their QA seriously, which is what this in > the end boils down to Judging by your past posts in this thread, I call BS on this. You've pretty much called anyone that didn't agree with you unprofessional. Guess what? We aren't professionals. Many of us are not developers by trade. Quite a few of us are still in school, maybe even high school. There's nothing wrong with that. I would bet many of us have never been in a job where they were held up to "professional development standards" of any kind. I know that this will probably piss off some people, but there are reasons why Gentoo is viewed as a hobbyist distribution. One of those reasons is because to most of our developers, THIS IS A HOBBY. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Operational/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
