On 12/23/2010 4:48 PM, David Greaves wrote:
On 21/12/10 10:11, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
but on the flip side, requiring that every little thing goes through
such an approval process goes to far if you ask me. The paperwork gets
way out of proportion with the actual work. In addition, if someone
implements something cool and contributes it to MeeGo, that's what
community contribution is about. We should be saying "thank you sir" not
"please fill out this stack of paperwork in threefold and we may let you
put it in".
WHAT!
Remind me again why we're cutting GPL3 apps?
Oh yes. Because we're not *just* a community based hobby distro. We're
supposed to have a rigorous QA process with tightly defined features
to allow vendors to rely on the stability and functionality and to
allow us all to manage MeeGo in a highly efficient manner.
Doing pointless paperwork does not a rigorous QA process make.
I was the architect for Red Hat's enterprise QA team for a year, and
yes, MeeGo's QA process is very far from mature compared to what they
had. But doing pointless bureaucracy does not make it better.... far
from it. It makes a lot of wasted manhours on things that add zero value
to the actual quality of the final product. Really.
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-packaging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
