On Tue, 2006-11-04 at 19:35 -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: > > Isn't this why we already have the arch tester position as described by > > GLEP 41 (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0041.html)? > > Furthermore, are you saying that users would enroll themselves via this > > hypothetical web interface, or that an arch team would do so for users > > who have proven themselves to be worthy? If the former, this would be a > > serious step back in terms of QA (think about sorting out all the crap > > reports from ricer overlay users with OMGFAST CFLAGS from the decent > > ones). If the latter, I think the arch tester position already covers > > this sort of thing. > > > > didn't he ask for people who know a particular application very well? > i think there is a big difference between agreeing to test one > particular package since they know it very well and want to make sure > noone breaks it vs. being a full AT with all the things they get asked > to test
Having a user test an application for a dev isn't a problem, as long as the dev takes full responsibility for his resulting actions. This is also true for ATs (the devs are still responsible for their commits even if its on AT advice). So a dev can keep a list of trusted users, but if we want to have an official list, then we need to make sure that the people on that list are competent and that's where the AT process is important. -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
