Renat Lumpau wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user >> files a report at bugs.gentoo.org > > I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out > which QA issues are important and which are less so. A QA team member's > opinion > (personal attacks, whatever) should be an important input but not the final > say.
At the risk of trying to get this conversation back on track, here's what has been happening: Some members of the QA team are working on a new QA tool to identify QA problems in the portage tree. As they add new tests, they run their tool on the tree, and file bugs on any packages that are found to violate that particular QA test. I think it's fair to say that these QA checks will find problems ranging from not-awful-but-annoying to could-break-your-system, but they are all bugs that ought to be fixed eventually. Now, if you're currently working on fixing a big problem and thus too busy to fix the little one, that's perfectly reasonable, but to not fix a small bug because you know there are larger bugs that aren't fixed just seems lazy. So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to -dev asking for comments first? Does QA trump, or does the maintainer trump when it comes to disputes? -g2boojum-
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
