Josip Rodin wrote:
> I have adjusted Vincent Renardias' proposal which Martin Schulze
> kindly dug out of the archives. Here it is, and I hope you all
> will have something to say about it, especially if there are any
> errors to correct. After we make a conclusion and any needed changes,
> we must determine where to put this.
I wonder why you have skipped most of the text from my proposal?
You are trying to redifine QA. Please find out what Quality
Assurance stands for. And please go back and read the text
I have posted.
For example it tells you:
What is debian-qa and is it eatable?
QA stands for Quality Assurance and is intended to keep the quality
of the distribution as high as it should be. At the moment there is
no real Quality Assurance for Debian.
Do we need Quality Assurance?
With the growing number of developers working on Debian (>500
registrated developers at the moment) QA is urgently needed. It is
very interesting (and usually not the case) that the quality of
Debian is still that high. With companies having more than 500
concurrent developers ... I don't want to think about this...
Although we have strict rules (Policy) that defines requirements for
packages there is still missing a "department" which assures that
every package is packaged well and integrates in the system nicely.
Working on orphaned packages is only a side effect of the QA team.
It is NOT the main goal of QA.
Regards,
Joey
--
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
