Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate, > > the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem. The QA > > team does not want to override the maintainer's wishes by default, but > > only > > wish to do so when the team finds it is in the best interest of users > > and fellow developers to have the issue addressed as soon as possible. > > Maybe there should be something more here about dealing with maintainers > who are refusing to cooperate. What if the maintainer reverts the > changes that the QA team makes?
Well then, we have a problem and that is when we would call in devrel to
handle it. I really hope at no point it comes to the situation where we
need to override what the maintainer thinks is best, much less call in
devrel.
> >* The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with
> > explanations as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem.
> > The list is not meant by any means to be a comprehensive document
>
> Why isn't this list meant to be comprehensive? I know that there will be
> QA problems that come up that you haven't thought about yet, but it
> would be really really nice to have a list with all of the QA problems
> that could come up and how to fix them. It would help new developers
> avoid mistakes and it would benefit the QA team by giving them a
> document that they can direct devs to when there is a problem.
I addressed this in my reply to morfic, basically, it is just the
wording that threw you off :) I mean that it can never be complete, so
don't think it ever is.
--
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
pgp06rf5PGv2R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
