On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 03:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Well, if it's reached the "take drastic action" stage (which, let's > face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a > better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going > to get any sympathy from anyone. Get QA to issue an official > proclamation first if you'd like to legitimise it completely -- the > Council has already given them authority to do that...
+1 on this, Ciaran.
Honestly, *breaking* the tree knowingly should be a no-no. In fact, it
should be more of a no-no than pissing ${tribal-possessive-developer}
off. If someone gets miffed because you (QA and/or treecleaners) *fix*
their package after they've been non-responsive, then I reckon the
problem is *entirely* on that developer and not on QA.
Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to
take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing
that it does.
Thanks,
Seemant
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
