On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 11:21:47PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:11:21 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > | On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 05:22:17PM -0500, Mark Loeser > | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > * The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-herd assistance in > | > keeping the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding > | > and pointing out issues to maintainers and, where necessary, taking > | > direct action. > | > | Please clarify "neccessary". I don't want to see repeat occurances of > | non-issues bogging down real work. Also, please define around this a > | clear and documented policy so when its enforced, its well defended. > > The problem is... It's impossible to document every single way in which > someone can screw up. For example, I wouldn't've thought to document > "you should not run mkdir in global scope", because I didn't think > anyone would be daft enough to do it. Policy *has* to rely upon the > basic assumption that developers won't do something crazy.
yeah, thats totally understandable. Its a best-efforts thing. I just don't want neccessary to be deemed true for something which has an arguable point with technical merit. Blatent mkdir-esque madness would be more black than white, and I'd hope for this to try and sanitise the gray :) > | > * In the case of disagreement on policy among QA members, the > | > majority of established QA members must agree with the action. > | > | Perhaps pushing it to an open forum on -dev/-core for consensus works > | better here? > > The problem with that is, it usually ends up with too many pointless > comments from people saying how things could be fixed in the distant > future, or whining that it isn't explicitly forbidden by policy on > situations where the screwup was too weird to be documented previously. This is very much a case-by-case thing. I still feel the debate should be better answered outside of conflicting qa members. > | > * Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue > | > does not change the fact that it is still a QA violation. > | > | Is this a statement or a policy? I assume that if this is policy the > | non-visible issue would go about appropriate scrutany, and in turn a > | long-term solution made in the situation where it is not easily > | resolvable/avoidable. > > This is to cover for situations where people claim that their screwups > are ok because no-one has yet reported it as broken. I guess that also falls under the first point, based on the quality or vagueness of the documention :) - John -- Role: Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead Gentoo Linux: http://www.gentoo.org Public Key: gpg --recv-keys 9C745515 Key fingerprint: A0AF F3C8 D699 A05A EC5C 24F7 95AA 241D 9C74 5515
pgpHY5Q5bQh9y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
