On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> 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?
I think the QA team is free to classify QA bugs, but any changes should
be pushed to the -dev ML just so that everyone is aware what is
happening. It's a bit, well, annoying if QA decides that we have to use
the Wrong Bracing Style in eclasses and files 50 bugs for cosmetic fixes
while there are ebuilds doing evil things, but if there's a warning
("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal of
mkdir in global scope") I can live with that. Also QA should not just
decide on something without a documented explanation - it will erode
their credibility as it is seen as a random process unless there is
documentation.In case of dispute in general QA should be stronger than a single maintainer, but combined with the fact that QA also creates policy that would be a bit tricky. Disputes should be escalated along the normal devrel dispute lines I think, just think of QA as another herd/project and that mostly makes sense :-) QA is still new, so the communication channels might not be perfect- I hope everybody manages to cooperate so that Gentoo is the least buggy distro of them all when 2006.1 comes out ;-) Patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
