On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:14:33PM -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: > 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.
I agree completely. However, ciaranm seems to think that if we don't fix a
whitespace issue immediately, we'll ignore the rest of his QA comments and it's
therefore not worth it to let us know about the bigger issues:
in #gentoo-qa today:
18:39 <@ciaranm> pfff, if they won't fix whitespace, what're the chances of
them fixing anything else?
That's an odd position to take.
> 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?
Yes. Here's a quote from Halcy0n (with his permission):
Don't mistake me not getting involved for approval. I am just not going to
get involved in every single dev->dev disagreement, and certainly not when I
do not have all of the facts. I wasn't aware that every team leader was
accountable for how devs on their team behaved.
This is not meant as a comment on Halcy0n's abilities as a team leader, as I
understand he has attempted to manage the issue but "reasonable effort" has
failed.
So, my concern is: if the QA team can't manage its members effectively, should
they be entrusted with tree-wide powers?
--
Renat Lumpau all things web-apps
C6A838DA 04AF B5EE 17CB 1000 DDA5 D3FC 1338 ADC2 C6A8 38DA
America - land of the free*
*Void where prohibited, restrictions apply. Cash value 1/100c.
pgpWy4qqKbVYZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
