On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:05 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > 2. [...] Therefore I do not believe that QA for a tree that is as > > extensive as Sunrise done by a few 'official' developers amounts to > > much real world quality. > > I would expect that over time, the Sunrise developers will learn more > and more how to write quality ebuilds (as hopefully do we all). Since > they'll be working with a diverse set of stuff, they could become better > than most devs at this. Remember that since they have custody of the > stuff in the Sunrise overlay, they will be hit with whatever issues > arise from their work.
I expect the developers involved to be able to write quality ebuilds right now, otherwise they shouldn't be developers. However, I don't expect them to write quality ebuilds for everything in the tree, there are a lot of packages that need specific knowledge to make a correct ebuild. That is why we got the herd system, that is why we have a couple of hundred ebuilders who all have their own specific parts of the tree to take care of. > What it does give you is a track record you can look through - in much > the same way you might have watched what someone did on bugzilla or > IRC. Indeed I'd suggest that the history in Sunrise SVN would be > useful to indicate whether someone is learning how to write ebuilds > properly, or just continues to make the same errors. Ebuilding is such a small part of the job I wouldn't seriously take it into account, to me much more important is the bughandling skills of a potential developer. Is he/she able to distill the right information from a report, ask for the right additional info and come to a practical and neat solution ? - Marinus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
