Peter Johanson wrote: >I know this is intended to be tongue in cheek, > Good.
> but I have a dev in the >dotnet herd who's really pretty upset right now as a result of such >apparently scathing comments accusing him of being an evil conspirator, >a wrecker, and traitor, when it wasn't even *him* who introduced the >keywords in question, he did a by the book bump moving arch -> ~arch for >all arches listed in keywords. > > Book in question sort of presumes that ones who change keywords *personally* tested that package in question works. You set keyword, you sign the life of your first-born that it will work. Or at least that's the way it should be. >I understand that this is a consistent problem, and that we constantly >have to deal with breakages like this, but please don't send emails >like this with so many accusations without at least talking to the herd >lead, or viewing CVS history first. > > This *is* a consistent problem. But it shouldn't be. QA. Should. Be. Done. >I like dealing with the mess of pissed off and enflamed developers as >much as the arch teams like dealing with bad QA, so next time, please >use at least a *little* subtlty before blowing things up. > > Grow up people, I didn't even say names. To say more - I'm far more upset about person who introduced keywords. >Anyway, I'm glad all the arch teams, who are the one's that never screw >up and save us all, are fixing things. > > Yeap. What would you do without us. At least I get yelled at only once for technical mistakes I make. ></sarcasm> > > Oh, since we have to indicate jokes/sarcasm now: LOPATA. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
