On Sunday 23 April 2006 01:51, Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is the newest revision of my proposal. Not much has changed, but
I added and changed some small things. Constructive feedback is
appreciated. I'd like to get this voted on by the council at the next
meeting.
It looks reasonable to me.
Daniel Goller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is the newest revision of my proposal. Not much has changed, but I
added and changed some small things. Constructive feedback is
appreciated. I'd like to get this voted on by the council at the next
meeting.
* The QA
Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Daniel Goller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is the newest revision of my proposal. Not much has changed, but I
added and changed some small things. Constructive feedback is
appreciated. I'd like to get this voted on by the
Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem. The QA
team does not want to override the maintainer's wishes by default, but
only
wish to do so when the team finds
And now in GLEP format for those who like that sort of thing :)
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html
I made the two wording changes so it is more clear what I wanted to
communicate.
--
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email - halcy0n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Loeser wrote:
Daniel Goller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is the newest revision of my proposal. Not much has changed, but I
added and changed some small things. Constructive feedback is
appreciated. I'd like to get this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is the newest revision of my proposal. Not much has changed, but I
added and changed some small things. Constructive feedback is
appreciated. I'd like to get this voted on by the council at the next
meeting.
* The QA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team
may request that devrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights.
Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to
devrel.
define persistently, how
Here is the newest revision of my proposal. Not much has changed, but I
added and changed some small things. Constructive feedback is
appreciated. I'd like to get this voted on by the council at the next
meeting.
* The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping
the tree
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem. The QA
team does not want to override the maintainer's wishes by default, but only
wish to do so when the team finds it is in the best interest of users
and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* QA will take an active role in cleaning up unmaintained and broken
packages from the tree.
I hope this is meant to read more like:
QA will take an active role in cleaning up unmaintained packages from
the tree if they are severly broken or
Thomas Cort wrote:
* The QA team will maintain a list of current QA Standards with
explanations as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem.
The list is not meant by any means to be a comprehensive document
Why isn't this list meant to be comprehensive? I know that there will
12 matches
Mail list logo
