On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:58, Alec Warner wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote: > >>28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>>whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then > >>>they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the > >>>subject > >>> > >>>considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it > >>>into a proper QA check by having the class see where files were > >>> installed and then warn/abort if certain conditions are met > >>> > >>>there's no reason for the user to see this crap > >> > >>Yeah, and there's no reason for user to see USE_EXPAND QA notice crap, > >>eclass inherited illegally crap and a couple of others - this isn't going > >>anywhere. > > > > unrelated ... that is a portage limitation that has deeper work going on > > around it to resolve the issue properly ... this is an eclass limitation > > that can be resolved now > > > >>You are trying to solve something that noone ever complained about. Why > >> not rather solve stuff like ebuilds that depend unconditionally on arts, > >> but because they inherit kde eclass they get bogus arts use flag from > >> the eclass. This is an issue that's truly confusing and that people are > >> filing bugs about. There's the difference between doing something useful > >> and wasting time on an artificially invented issue. > > > > right, so from now on people shouldnt bother fixing issues until a bug is > > filed, that way we know someone actually cares enough to have the issue > > resolved > > > > today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user > > files a report at bugs.gentoo.org > > Actually as was mentioned on #gentoo-qa earlier today, I'd prefer to see > bugs filed in almost all circumstances. If QA and the maintainer can > fix stuff without bugs, thats cool, especially for trivial matters. If > QA and the developer aren't getting along on a specific issue then there > is no reason NOT to have a bug open. > > Otherwise you get circumstances that were also discussed, such as "I > told the maintainer in person over a year ago..." which may in fact be > true, but people forget things and make mistakes and now you have > nothing to point at for proof of inactivity except a vague statement. > Better to cover your rear and be able to point to a year old bug with a > solution attached, and be like "look there is a bug and a fix and no one > did jack squat." Essentially you have a case for any sane developer to > agree with.
dont get me wrong, i wasnt implying that bugs shouldnt be filed ... i was addressing the incorrect idea that it isnt a valid QA issue unless a user experiences it and complains via bugzilla -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
