Jason Wever wrote: <snip> > > From my perspective, if a package maintainer asks for testing and the > ability to keyword (i.e. Spanky asking me if it was OK to bump binutils > to 2.16, to which I said yes) then that is fine. However adding or > changing keywords in an ebuild for which you cannot test (regardless of > how trivial the changes are or how "portable" the programming language > of said package is supposed to be) is really where I'm looking at here.
Wouldn't it be better from a QA perspective to go back to the (really) old policy of dropping anything you can't test on. I know that puts more work on you guys, but this is only going to get worse as we get more devs. Wouldn't it be better to nip this in the bud now. Maybe broaden the arch teams by giving some devs access to remote boxes. --Or-- Get every dev access to all the supported arches (some of this could probably be done with emulators of some sort, qemu or somesuch). Make them test on every arch before they change any keywords. --Iggy > > For some odd reason, trying to ensure QA (even in the nicest of > fashions) seems to result in a majority of less than positive > responses. Even recently I've had a developer get quite confrontational > with me over email when I nicely asked him not to stabilize packages for > which he could not test (even if the changes were supposedly trivial). > History has shown that we cannot depend on assuming that trivial changes > for me == works for you if we want to have some level of Q in QA. > > Cheers, > - -- Jason Wever > Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
