On Wednesday 01 March 2006 00:08, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > dont get me wrong, i wasnt implying that bugs shouldnt be filed ... i was > addressing the incorrect idea that it isnt a valid QA issue unless a user > experiences it and complains via bugzilla
I agree with this. I would however also like to ask QA to allow exceptions to policy for well-discussed reasons. Sometimes ugly hacks are needed, and as long as they are understood to be ugly, they must not be banned outright. I don't think it is a problem if those issues have LATER bugs on them blocking on some feature request bug. I can even agree with it that a feature request bug must be written for such a hack to be allowed. With respect to webapp-config. I know it's ugly, I know it does perform jobs that should be performed by portage. Portage however doesn't, and webapp-config does provide valuable features for many users. As such, as long as portage does not offer the features that webapp-config provides, I am of the opinion that the webapp.eclass should be allowed to use "minimal" hacks to provide the webapp features. QA's role in this case is to ensure that no hacks are added, and to signal it when the hacks break. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpmUo9k4oCyD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
