-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/28/2014 9:41 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 28.04.2014 17:30, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:08:28 +1000 Michael Palimaka >> <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 04/28/2014 04:56 PM, hasufell wrote: >>>> What is going on here? Doesn't look right. The commit >>>> messages don't give an understandable reason. >>>> >>> >>> It was added to the tree by someone outside the Qt team >>> without permission. Since it's not ready for the tree yet, it >>> was immediately removed again. >> >> So the Qt team is overriding the QA team now? Is it >> alphabetical? >> > > As a Qt team lead i want to say that there is no permission for me > or pesa(as the main maintainer of Qt Framework packages) for > importing Qt 5 in tree. So, i kindly asks zlogene to remove that > stuff from main tree. > > As QA team member - there was no serious QA issue here - ebuilds, > even semi-broken, was bringed with apropriate masks, so - no damage > on users's systems. > Saying that a Qt team member did something wrong because he reverted an action taken by someone who happens to be a member of the QA team is like saying that I can't revert something done by a council member to one of my packages just because they happen to be on the council. As Pinkbyte said, there was no QA issue here, just a developer being quick on the trigger, so the membership of any parties in QA is irrelevant to the discussion.
Chris Reffett -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlNeW8IACgkQ23laikJhg1RQ6wCbBVdKKUe0J9n74CPBOmOdWmvz JqEAmgM5PuT29aF5Djyp6X1thdo2z/WX =E9g0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
