On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:46:37 +0000 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 20:00 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Then you must talk to upstream and get them to change their ways. | | Already covered in the (growing) discussion in bug #123926. UPSTREAM | have previously been contacted over the issue, and have not changed | their release policy.
Ok, so given that this is a closed source application, if upstream won't cooperate on something as simple as this, why do you expect them to cooperate with you on bugs or security issues? | I'm a little rusty at this - it's six years since I ran the DDS4 test | team for HP - but isn't one of the internationally recognised | requirements of every recognised QA standard that exists that a QA | policy should be documented? Utterly impractical. If you want to hire a dozen people to do this, go right ahead. But then, if you're hiring a dozen people, there are far more useful things they could be doing. | On a practical note, I don't understand how you expect developers to | follow an undocumented QA process. Sorry, I just don't get that one. We expect you to be sensible. When this fails, we point out issues and work with the developer to get things fixed. Over the past couple of weeks, QA has gotten somewhere around a couple of hundred tree issues fixed. In every situation bar three, the response has been "thanks for pointing this out". In another two, the response was to fix the bug silently. No-one is expecting perfection. QA is here first and foremost to find issues, get them fixed and try to prevent the same breakage from being repeated. | Everything else is up for discussion. I think it's unreasonable to | say that I'm refusing to work with you. You're repeatedly closing off the bug rather than suggesting alternative ways of fixing the issue. There's been one possibility mentioned in this thread already, but it can't go anywhere unless someone with an affected package (which is you) is prepared to go to the Portage team with a justification. | Bearing in mind the discussion that's happened in the bug, on IRC with | Halcy0n, and in this mailing list, please understand this: I don't | believe that the QA team has provided evidence that it has the | authority to do anything to these packages over this SRC_URI issue. | If the team chooses to take unilateral action, I'll be left with no | choice but to file a formal complaint against the team as a | consequence. See Daniel's post in the thread. The council has already agreed that QA has authority. | I'm happy (and have suggested earlier) that this issue needs to go to | the council to be resolved. Being done. The council will be asked to approve a more specific description of QA's authority in the next meeting, since our existing mandate is "listen to the QA team because they're working of valid policy. if you dont, devrel will take action" (sic). | The issue at hand is that the QA team is, in this case, repeatedly | asking for something it doesn't have the authority to insist on. I | also think you're being unreasonable in this specific case. We're asking you to work with us in fixing a tree breakage. That's our goal here. We can't do this if you just go around closing off bugs and refusing to cooperate. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
