On 16/12/17 17:45, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2017, 13:21:47 CET schrieb Fabian Groffen: >> Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification >> for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be >> preferred, but a pointer to a location where said issues can be found >> would do too. >> >> Thanks, >> Fabian >> >> On 14-12-2017 12:10:59 +0000, Andreas Hüttel wrote: >>> URL: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=34e2c43f > That would have been a good thing to do, yes. > > Unfortunately I was between two meetings, just saw the message on #gentoo-qa > that someone had committed straight to m-n, and if it could be reverted by > someone with tree access, and decided to quickly help out. > > (And adding a new package straight to m-n is in my opinion enough reason for > an immediate revert.) > > That said I think we have sorted out things in the meantime. > Andreas,
Thanks for the explanation out in the clear! Might I politely, with all due respect, suggest that drive-by tree commits are avoided, without adequate prior investigation. Whilst I think your intentions were indeed noble and justified, the resolution was not ideal .. (not that perfection is ever achievable) .. but perhaps alerting another member of QA to do said investigation may have been a slightly better method! :] Best regards, Michael.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
