On 12/23/2010 2:39 PM, David Greaves wrote:
On 21/12/10 08:19, Carsten Munk wrote:
2010/12/21 Arjan van de Ven<[email protected]>
On 12/20/2010 9:53 PM, Kangkai Yin wrote:
Hi,
Adding new package kernel-adaptation-oaktrail in project
Trunk:Testing.
Please review and accept ASAP.
Justification for this new package:
The kernel for Oaktrail, fix #BMC 11588
ok this is getting silly
opening dummy bugs just to get past the paperwork, just so you can
claim
you "fixed" a bug...
our bureaucrazy has gone waaaay too far.
We're in a development window, not in a "code freeze strict bugfixes
only"
part of the schedule!
Does that mean people get to "just add new kernels" in a development
window?
if they comply with the rules set out by the TSG last week? Absolutely YES.
Well, and we're side-stepping program management totally by having those
dummy bugs. A new package should be a FEA# and approved by program
management as per
http://wiki.meego.com/Release_Engineering/Process#Package_quality_expectations_for_submissions_into_.2A:Testing_projects
Either we start enforcing it for everything or we have to modify the
rules
to fit reality... Proposals welcome?
Isn't that the point of this. The process just found a clearly bogus
change to a package. There is no valid bug being addressed and no
feature logged. Who is responsible for 'oaktrail'.
What makes you think this package is clearly bogus ?????????
An adaptation kernel that complies by the rules of last weeks TSG
decision is submitted... what makes that bogus ?
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-packaging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
