I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their
freely given time nullified and access removed because one person
thought it was deserved.
Do you r
On Monday 20 January 2014 13:18:46 Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 20/01/14 18:26, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in
> >> the one place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc.
On Monday 20 January 2014 12:26:13 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in the one
> > place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc.
>
> If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev ma
I'm removing myself from these packages because I have never really
used them. My only interest in them was their interaction with
net-misc/freerdp.
net-misc/remmina -- upstream is basically dead, but I do have commit access
net-libs/libvncserver
x11-misc/x11vnc
Please feel free to take them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/20/2014 03:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman
>> wrote:
>>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to
>>> suspend people
>>>
>>> Whether this h
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:56:14PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:03:22 +0100
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > With this in mind, i currently dont see any case where QA would need
> > the ability to remove the commit access of a dev, so i dont see a
> > need for this glep update.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:03:22 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> With this in mind, i currently dont see any case where QA would need
> the ability to remove the commit access of a dev, so i dont see a
> need for this glep update.
The case you have enumerated is just one possible case, this is a case
w
Tom Wijsman schrieb:
>
> [1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48
>
> "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does
> not break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council
> meeting. The package should be dealt with per QA's request until
>
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:16:54 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who
> > > do not.
> >
> > We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is
> > optional. :)
>
> Policies don't enforce quality, people enforce qua
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who do not.
>
> We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is optional. :)
Policies don't enforce quality, people enforce quality.
And doing that is quickly frustrating.
If enforcing quality would be a
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:56:57 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who do
> not.
We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is optional. :)
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Of course one could see QA as defending the Portage tree with our heart;
> but not that literally, at least not up to the point that one gets
> painfully hurt or even just frustrated...
Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who do not.
//Peter
pgp8g2z
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:47:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If Comrel really objects to this I'm not entirely opposed to letting
>> QA have the reins (certainly we can't just let policy go unenforced
>> entirely). However, I would enco
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:47:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If Comrel really objects to this I'm not entirely opposed to letting
> QA have the reins (certainly we can't just let policy go unenforced
> entirely). However, I would encourage the teams to give some thought
> as to whether it makes
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> If a developer does an unannounced mass action that breaks the tree
> severely or is heavily prohibited by policy, is unreachable while he
> continues to commit this; then it would be handy to "temporarily" be
> able to withdraw the commit acce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:40:09 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Discussing this in gentoo-dev makes no sense. Whoever wants the
> profiles.desc to be part of the devmanual document, please submit a
> patch.
This confuses me, as vapier is trying to forma
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:26:13 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in this
> file?
From a QA perspective, it would be nice to have the policy documentation
available in both locations; but as duplication would create out of date
copies, I sug
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:09:46 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Speaking as someone who had this power in his day job, for QA to be
> able to suspend accounts is a very bad idea indeed. It always ends
> badly. I suspended 20+ accounts in my current job over the years and
> the number of cases where it
18 matches
Mail list logo
