[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > 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 :)
Later on we tried to address that by saying the majority of the QA team
members must agree with the action. It is normally pretty black and
white when things are necessary, and I do not know how we can accurately
describe those problems without limiting our scope.
> > 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.
Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this
enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people
believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the
council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear
alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems.
--
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
http://www.halcy0n.com
pgpxt7Aa3nArI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
