-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: | It's about quality not quantity maybe?
It's about both, and getting the balance right is effectively what this boils down to (as do many discussions on -dev). There's those devs who want high levels of QA and those devs that want the latest/obscure/testing/rare packages. Generally the two sides play oppose each other. Personally I think having both super-devs (who do lots of commits, care deeply about QA and know their stuff intimately) and official-contributor type devs (those who maintain a few specialist packages when they can) is a good idea. Giving the undertakers more work by giving them more reports of potentially lax devs and requiring them to investigate seems a little wasteful to me. I'd far rather the undertakers spent the extra time on positive contributions to the actual distribution (rather than it's administration). So the still unanswered question appears to be, would we like Gentoo to have fewer packages and less choice but greater QA, stability and a feel of professionalism, or would we like to have more packages and choice but a worse QA record, make some mistakes, and have a more community-based feel? If you're going to try to answer this question please be delicate with your repsonses, in the past I can recall developers leaving over exactly this divide... Mike 5:) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkf0y6wACgkQu7rWomwgFXoCRACdHKACZY9yjfetGKJ5JtRP6y6U YBkAniFzWanDJvUkXUe8XglBBBP9sXsk =mp9f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
