Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:02:11 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> You're complaining about how somebody made a fix that they wouldn't >> have had to make but for the commit you made without consulting with >> them. > > No, I didn't do that commit at all and only a little complaining. This > is between hasufell and patrick. I see now how you're confused there, > so I'll skip the rest of your explaining since it shouldn't have been > addressed to me at all. :) Indeed, apologies. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:02:11 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > You're complaining about how somebody made a fix that they wouldn't > have had to make but for the commit you made without consulting with > them. No, I didn't do that commit at all and only a little complaining. This is between hasufell and patrick. I see now how you're confused there, so I'll skip the rest of your explaining since it shouldn't have been addressed to me at all. :) jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:21:15 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers >> wrote: >> > >> > The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild >> > in question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision >> > bump with no clue as to why it was removed or why the revision bump >> > was required: >> > >> >> You'd probably do well to read: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands >> >> The TL;DR of that is "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw >> stones." >> >> I get that you're probably not being serious, but if for some reason >> you are I'd suggest letting somebody else in QA handle it. >> >> And, really, next time just talk to somebody before you go bumping >> their ebuilds. If they're not cooperative then you'll garner a lot >> more sympathy. This is staff quiz kind of stuff. > > I have no idea why you're telling me all that. I don't normally quote > excessive context but in this case I really don't see how my text and > your text connect. You're complaining about how somebody made a fix that they wouldn't have had to make but for the commit you made without consulting with them. It is a bit like crashing into your neighbor's parked car and then complaining that they didn't do a good job cleaning up the glass on the sidewalk the next day. Courts call that having unclean hands - if you cut your foot on that glass you'd have a hard time suing them for it, even in the US where you can sue just about anybody for anything. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:17:12 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > The broken libuv-1.2.1.ebuild was not disabling unwanted addition of > -g to CFLAGS. The fix for this problem affected installed files, so > revision bump was required. Yes, and I was talking about ChangeLog entries to that effect. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:21:15 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers > wrote: > > > > The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild > > in question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision > > bump with no clue as to why it was removed or why the revision bump > > was required: > > > > You'd probably do well to read: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands > > The TL;DR of that is "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw > stones." > > I get that you're probably not being serious, but if for some reason > you are I'd suggest letting somebody else in QA handle it. > > And, really, next time just talk to somebody before you go bumping > their ebuilds. If they're not cooperative then you'll garner a lot > more sympathy. This is staff quiz kind of stuff. I have no idea why you're telling me all that. I don't normally quote excessive context but in this case I really don't see how my text and your text connect. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
2015-01-19 10:40 Jeroen Roovers napisał(a):
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:26:55 +
> hasufell wrote:
>
> > Patrick Lauer (patrick):
> > > patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
> > >
> > > Modified: ChangeLog
> > > Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
> > > Log:
> > > Bump
> > >
> >
> > I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages.
> > That includes QA team members.
>
> The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild in
> question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision bump with
> no clue as to why it was removed or why the revision bump was required
$ diff -u1 libuv-1.2.1.ebuild libuv-1.2.1-r1.ebuild
--- libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
+++ libuv-1.2.1-r1.ebuild
@@ -2,3 +2,3 @@
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
-# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/dev-libs/libuv/Attic/libuv-1.2.1.ebuild,v
1.1 2015/01/16 04:16:55 patrick Exp $
+# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/dev-libs/libuv/libuv-1.2.1-r1.ebuild,v 1.1
2015/01/16 15:47:31 hasufell Exp $
@@ -9,3 +9,3 @@
DESCRIPTION="A new platform layer for Node"
-HOMEPAGE="https://github.com/joyent/libuv";
+HOMEPAGE="https://github.com/libuv/libuv";
SRC_URI="https://github.com/libuv/libuv/archive/v${PV}.tar.gz -> ${P}.tar.gz"
@@ -17,3 +17,6 @@
-DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig"
+DEPEND="
+ sys-devel/libtool
+ virtual/pkgconfig
+"
@@ -24,4 +27,4 @@
sed -i \
- -e '/libuv_la_CFLAGS/s#-g##' \
- Makefile.am || die "fixing CFLAGS failed!"
+ -e '/CC_CHECK_CFLAGS_APPEND(\[-g\])/d' \
+ configure.ac || die "fixing CFLAGS failed!"
The broken libuv-1.2.1.ebuild was not disabling unwanted addition of -g to
CFLAGS.
The fix for this problem affected installed files, so revision bump was
required.
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
Rich Freeman wrote: > working out things 1:1 if possible .. > it is probably better to let Comrel do their job, rather than > having everybody bicker on the list. Working out things 1:1 *on the list* is nice in that it adds transparency. Of course, it is then also very easy for people to send unrelated replies. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild in > question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision bump with > no clue as to why it was removed or why the revision bump was required: > You'd probably do well to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands The TL;DR of that is "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." I get that you're probably not being serious, but if for some reason you are I'd suggest letting somebody else in QA handle it. And, really, next time just talk to somebody before you go bumping their ebuilds. If they're not cooperative then you'll garner a lot more sympathy. This is staff quiz kind of stuff. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > > Do not get me wrong, Patrick. You, as QA team member, can touch other's > packages without prior noticing, if fixing serious issues involved. But > with great power comes great responsibility. Please, use your power more > wisely next time. > This wasn't a QA commit. QA modifications should always be noted as such in the commit/changelogs/etc. If you revert/etc one of these commits expect to be called on it, and you had better have a REALLY good reason for it. You're best off pinging somebody in QA if you have an issue with a QA commit, and working with them. If somebody feels QA commits are being abused they should reach out to the QA lead, or ultimately Comrel/Council if things can't be worked out - as you say with great power comes great responsibility. Commits made by people who happen to be members of QA that aren't labeled as QA commits are the same as commits made by any random developer, and should generally follow the same processes. That means working out things 1:1 if possible, and if not going through the normal Comrel process. The QA team really had nothing to do with this commit. I don't think bringing up QA is particularly helpful here. However, in general developers should always work with maintainers when modifying their packages, especially for things like bumps. It isn't always practical to consult with individual developers for tree-wide work, but this kind of work should generally be announced on the appropriate lists and so on, and will often use tracker bugs and the like. It sounds like neither was done here. However, in these sorts of situations it is probably better to let Comrel do their job (and appeal to Council if you're unsatisfied with it), rather than having everybody bicker on the list. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:26:55 + hasufell wrote: > Patrick Lauer (patrick): > > patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 > > > > Modified: ChangeLog > > Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild > > Log: > > Bump > > > > I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. > That includes QA team members. The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild in question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision bump with no clue as to why it was removed or why the revision bump was required: *libuv-1.2.1-r1 (16 Jan 2015) 16 Jan 2015; Julian Ospald +libuv-1.2.1-r1.ebuild: version bump 16 Jan 2015; Julian Ospald -libuv-1.2.1.ebuild: rm unreviewed ebuild Also, nobody brought up the QA role but you. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
17.01.2015 03:56, Patrick Lauer пишет: > On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: >> Patrick Lauer: >>> On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: Patrick Lauer (patrick): > patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 > > Modified: ChangeLog > Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild > Log: > Bump I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. That includes QA team members. >>> >>> Are you always in such a bad mood? >> >> Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? > > No. > > Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. > We are talking about following the rules[1]. Did this bump fix some serious issue, that you need to fix without notifing maintainer, as our policies states? I did not see any mentions of bugs, related to this bump, even simple version bump bug. And not signs of issues fixed in ChangeLog message either. Thus - i understand hasufell's reaction. Do not get me wrong, Patrick. You, as QA team member, can touch other's packages without prior noticing, if fixing serious issues involved. But with great power comes great responsibility. Please, use your power more wisely next time. Ordinary version bump(unless we have some breakages in tree, because of really old versions in tree) is not the case of serious issue. You should probably file a bug on package maintainer next time, as ordinary developers usually do for packages, that are not maintained by them. And only if no reaction from maintainer for a reasonable time amount will follow - bump it yourself. [1] - http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48 -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
Patrick Lauer: > On Saturday 17 January 2015 17:25:15 hasufell wrote: >> Patrick Lauer: >>> On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: Patrick Lauer: > On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: >> Patrick Lauer (patrick): >>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 >>> >>> Modified: ChangeLog >>> Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild >>> Log: >>> Bump >> >> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. >> That includes QA team members. > > Are you always in such a bad mood? Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? >>> >>> No. >>> >>> Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. >> >> Patrick, I am really sorry, but this answer made me laugh and cry. >> >> A review workflow is a fundamental concept in programming methodology >> and we have decades of experience that taught us how important it is. > > But just "add review" or "add agile" doesn't fix quality. Same way Security > is > not just a checkbox, but a process. (Plus there's the whole manpower thing > we'll ignore for now, etc. etc. ...) > Yes exactly. A review is not a checkbox, but a process (in contrary to running repoman). It's the process of asking someone for comments on your patch, getting useful answers and then going ahead with a commit maybe. You didn't follow that process. That in conjunction with your weird answer makes me think that you really don't like getting reviews. Your attempts to relativize the review workflow defined in devmanual (which is still a bit lax, tbh) is confusing at best. So unless you can tell me how your flawed commit (the sed call was silently broken) did improve the quality of my ebuild, I am still insisting on a review workflow.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Saturday 17 January 2015 17:25:15 hasufell wrote: > Patrick Lauer: > > On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: > >> Patrick Lauer: > >>> On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: > Patrick Lauer (patrick): > > patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 > > > > Modified: ChangeLog > > Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild > > Log: > > Bump > > I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. > That includes QA team members. > >>> > >>> Are you always in such a bad mood? > >> > >> Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? > > > > No. > > > > Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. > > Patrick, I am really sorry, but this answer made me laugh and cry. > > A review workflow is a fundamental concept in programming methodology > and we have decades of experience that taught us how important it is. But just "add review" or "add agile" doesn't fix quality. Same way Security is not just a checkbox, but a process. (Plus there's the whole manpower thing we'll ignore for now, etc. etc. ...) I'm unwilling to entertain your attempts at baiting me into statements you hope to use against me, and I'm unwilling to play your passive-agressive whining game. > > I have no words to describe how disappointed I am right now. It'll pass, don't worry ...
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? > > No. > > Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. A review workflow isn't about bureaucracy, it's about review. :) Now, review means different things to different people, and some will sometimes do mediocre review and consider that sufficient while others will usually always do excellent review. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
Patrick Lauer: > On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: >> Patrick Lauer: >>> On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: Patrick Lauer (patrick): > patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 > > Modified: ChangeLog > Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild > Log: > Bump I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. That includes QA team members. >>> >>> Are you always in such a bad mood? >> >> Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? > > No. > > Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. > Patrick, I am really sorry, but this answer made me laugh and cry. A review workflow is a fundamental concept in programming methodology and we have decades of experience that taught us how important it is. I have no words to describe how disappointed I am right now.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
Am Samstag, 17. Januar 2015, 01:56:01 schrieb Patrick Lauer:
> On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote:
> > Patrick Lauer:
> > > On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote:
> > >> Patrick Lauer (patrick):
> > >>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55
> > >>>
> > >>> Modified: ChangeLog
> > >>> Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild
> > >>> Log:
> > >>> Bump
> > >>
> > >> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages.
> > >> That includes QA team members.
> > >
> > > Are you always in such a bad mood?
> >
> > Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality?
>
> No.
>
> Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself.
Oh for ${DEITY}'s sake, get a soundproof basement somewhere and fight it out.
Yes we have that rule about "touching other developer's ebuilds", and it also
applies to >10year devs. So since the maintainer insists, how about "ok, I'm
sorry, will do better next time"?
I see absolutely no need to invoke any QA privileges here, and it also wasn't
done when doing the bump. So the only QA team "involvment" would be that it's
expected of members of privileged teams to be sensitive about doing things by
the book.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde)
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/17/2015 05:09 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:56:01 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: >>> Patrick Lauer: On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: > Patrick Lauer (patrick): >> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 >> >> Modified: ChangeLog Added: >> libuv-1.2.1.ebuild Log: Bump > > I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my > packages. That includes QA team members. Are you always in such a bad mood? >>> >>> Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow >>> improves quality? >> >> No. >> >> Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. > > This is not a formal bureaucracy, there are some rules to behave > in community and these rules are supposed to be equal for > everyone: > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html > > "Touching other developers ebuilds". > > The fact that developer with QA team member mandate (even if it > was not used in this case) intentionally violates this policy > without even considering this action as something abnormal is very > disturbing. > > Best regards, Andrew Savchenko > we are having the same discussion every couple of months. It should have been a clue that such issues are not meant to be solved in the list since we tend to drive everything off-topic in the end. It might be best to report such issues to the designated teams. At least then, if there is no solution, at least you followed the normal procedure - -- Regards, Markos Chandras -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJUujN7XxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRGRDlGMzA4MUI2MzBDODQ4RDBGOEYxMjQx RjEwRUQ0QjgxREVCRjE5AAoJEB8Q7UuB3r8ZWegH/jaswVnHB14ozVO54TWwiThf VWMoFlvE093jYIU/pxWK+4+petQX5ikAONagcnR4zPKIQybtUEnLGTH70A/lFvyU oDjyroJg2Mq2auRD7s1pETEVXWhroh+gDLmR7SBcHXCAcJSyOlu4rhPRDlZPkBJV BaeMMUE+0dcHQYypKGizSt20ov0LT396smGWgFZFxjSJsEs8H6iDuxzJm5JdB+AZ S6AFbIlwsXi4gTWIk2fxbGg2pRUUDwykhoWfu3pv2iIwuOLbGGrct6xRm/vlzLrB HFdnqVqVEzd/LcjW4cYmTkFbup6L0qCfUKu2cxkRI/EJfIIsJLmN9O557r47Gm8= =JH6B -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:56:01 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: > > Patrick Lauer: > > > On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: > > >> Patrick Lauer (patrick): > > >>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 > > >>> > > >>> Modified: ChangeLog > > >>> Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild > > >>> Log: > > >>> Bump > > >> > > >> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. > > >> That includes QA team members. > > > > > > Are you always in such a bad mood? > > > > Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? > > No. > > Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. This is not a formal bureaucracy, there are some rules to behave in community and these rules are supposed to be equal for everyone: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html "Touching other developers ebuilds". The fact that developer with QA team member mandate (even if it was not used in this case) intentionally violates this policy without even considering this action as something abnormal is very disturbing. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko pgpjs_EYXoZJc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: > Patrick Lauer: > > On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: > >> Patrick Lauer (patrick): > >>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 > >>> > >>> Modified: ChangeLog > >>> Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild > >>> Log: > >>> Bump > >> > >> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. > >> That includes QA team members. > > > > Are you always in such a bad mood? > > Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? No. Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
What now? There's nothing "bad mood" about that email and your question is a deflection. Patrick, you're the one "in the wrong" here. If there's a maintainer in the metadata.xml file it's polite to touch base before changing the state of the package. The proper reply was, "Oh, sorry, next time I'll check before modifying the state of the package you're maintaining." On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: >> Patrick Lauer (patrick): >>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 >>> >>> Modified: ChangeLog >>> Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild >>> Log: >>> Bump >>> >> >> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. >> That includes QA team members. >> > > Are you always in such a bad mood? >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
Patrick Lauer: > On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: >> Patrick Lauer (patrick): >>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 >>> >>> Modified: ChangeLog >>> Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild >>> Log: >>> Bump >>> >> >> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. >> That includes QA team members. >> > > Are you always in such a bad mood? > Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: > Patrick Lauer (patrick): >> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 >> >> Modified: ChangeLog >> Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild >> Log: >> Bump >> > > I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. > That includes QA team members. > Are you always in such a bad mood?
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog
Patrick Lauer (patrick): > patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 > > Modified: ChangeLog > Added:libuv-1.2.1.ebuild > Log: > Bump > I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. That includes QA team members.
