Matthew Garrett wrote:
Unless the checking is part of autoqa this simply isn't
sufficient. There's a huge benefit to implementing it in the way
that's
easiest for maintainers.
The earlier a problem is detected, the cheaper it is to fix. If I have
understood AutoQA right, it gets
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Unless the checking is part of autoqa this simply isn't
sufficient. There's a huge benefit to implementing it in the way that's
easiest for maintainers.
The earlier a problem is detected, the cheaper it is to fix. If I have
understood AutoQA right, it gets involved
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:53:16PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Unless the checking is part of autoqa this simply isn't
sufficient. There's a huge benefit to implementing it in the way that's
easiest for maintainers.
The earlier a problem is detected, the cheaper
