On Tuesday 13 September 2005 01:50 pm, Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT] > > > > > I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one > > > devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical > > > policies (not using repoman, repeatedly breaking sections of the tree, > > > etcetera) that enforcement should be left up to the appropriate > > > managers, not devrel. The argument was that devrel devs are often not > > > experts in the technical aspects, so it's hard for them to adjudicate > > > effectively. > > > > I should also mention that I'm not advocating this interpretation. I'd > > much prefer that devrel's scope encompass such technical issues. > > I'd prefer the QA project/herd handle this.
the QA team tracks when something goes wrong and makes sure that people are educated on what they did wrong ... so in that aspect they are enforcing policy by telling the dev to stop screwing up > They deal in hauling in devs, dealing with idiot > devs, and chucking awol devs; I really don't see how QA falls under > them beyond potentially the punitive aspect of QA having someone's cvs > turned off for continually screwing up (willingly or otherwise). devrel is introduced as a last resort if the dev ignores the QA team -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
