On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:16:54 +0100 Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who > > > do not. > > > > We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is > > optional. :) > > Policies don't enforce quality, people enforce quality. Well, we have policy [1] stating that QA can enforce quality until overridden by a decision by the Council; so, to be fair, there are even more parties involved than just the policy. Which doesn't change the point; we can enforce quality, thus frustration is optional. :) > And doing that is quickly frustrating. There seems to be a lack of frustration in my experience as a QA member; I care about quality by helping people fix breakage, this gives me a feeling of accomplishment instead of a feeling of frustration. > If enforcing quality would be a purely mechanical task there wouldn't > be the same need for people, which would be ideal. But I think we're > some ways away from that still. We have (Auto)RepoMan and it improves as we speak; we are rather quite close to it, making RepoMan warnings fatal is just a step away. Given there is a lack of frustration, why should we do that? It could cause more frustration than what it is trying to fix. Interesting thought... Could we return back to the original subject of this thread? [1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48 "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting. The package should be dealt with per QA's request until such a time that a decision is made by the council." -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
