On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 20:07 -0600, Daniel Goller wrote:
i dont want this fixed so i can be sloppy, i want "a solution", so others won't be able to break the tree for everyone so easily, to protect myself from their QA, and make things easier reversible of they stil do not do proper QA
I would really prefer you not use the term QA again, seeing as how you're twisting its meaning to fit your own views.
im not able to convey my views, as this definition is what i was taught QA to be
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Quality+Assurance+(QA)
yet you think i twist it to fit my views
Now, I would like for you to explain to me how exactly I could not break the tree by using a versioned eclass? Will this not still allow me to commit a toolchain-1.3.eclass and have glibc inherit it and it still be broken? Will it be any harder to revert the changes to the ebuild to change the inheritance than it would be to restore an older ebuild from CVS that still uses the older eclass? Will it make things easier in fixing bugs in the eclass itself? If my 1.3 version of the eclass is broken, do I have to make a 1.4 version and touch every ebuild that inherited 1.3 just to fix a typo?
at least now i know where your negativity is coming from, id be angry at anyone wanting tools to do their QA
we actually have that in common
Because you know... we just haven't been doing any QA up until now on anything we've been committing... *sigh*
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
