On Monday 27 February 2006 19:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:05:58 -0600 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | Of course, that leaves the question of who decides on the severity of > | a QA violation? > > All this talk of severity, and no talk of "ease of detection" or "ease > of fixing"... > > Allow me to explain. There are certain not particularly high impact > issues that can very easily be detected, and with 100% reliability, by > The Thing About Which We Do Not Talk. Any individual one of these > doesn't look like such a big deal, but when we're talking a couple of > hundred instances, all of which can easily be fixed in less overall > time than it would take to even detect one instance of a particular > severe problem, it's most definitely worth concentrating on the 'easy' > issue.
I understand this point, but by your own admission, they are not particularly high impact. In the case at hand, the particular issue does however conflict with other goals. What I think would be reasonable is to expect that you are not going to be able to solve 100% of the "easilly detectable" issues. So, I think that while you continue to run the tests on these packages, you maintain a list of exceptions, including the reason for them being exceptions. Besides, work on finding solutions to the problems behind it. But do not choose the greater evil (removing or blocking a package) before the lesser evil (keeping a package with well-documented issues). In this respect I would like to propose that each package that has these issues related to missing portage features, ensures that a related bug is created for portage requesting that feature/a solution for the fundamental problem. This bug should be marked as blocker for the package related bugs in this respect. That way we can keep account of which features in portage are needed for which packages. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpunHQXZmc9Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
