On 20 June 2013 04:53, Diego Elio Pettenò <[email protected]> wrote: > Does this mean the QA lead finally gets to suspend people who are patently > not suited for developing a stable distribution without asking devrel? > Because last time we got into the same judge, jury, and executioner > argument, which I guess was just sent for the gallows (pun intended). > > Mind, it's not like I disagree with at least one of the actions that you > took recently, but given your surge approach I would like to point out that > is not your task judging code quality, and yes that does make me > uncomfortable, that you want to pick up the full power at once, and not > collaborate with whom should have been involved in the process. > > > Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes > [email protected] — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ > >
There is a high chance I drive this thread off-topic but: I believe the QA lead always had the power to suspend people if they break the tree but like I explained to my e-mail this is a temporary solution so it's not something we want in the long-term. Such actions need to be discussed internally. It's true that is not our task to judge code. But my understanding was that QA is not willing to pick up this task. We've seen numerous examples of bad commits or CCs of [email protected] in bugs with several technical disagreements and not a single QA warning "you are doing it wrong". I could easily be wrong though as I can't track everything. My opinion is that you need to bring more people in QA so you can delegate the "technical" tasks to them. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
