On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:02:45PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in > > > the previous discussions on the devrel list > > > > > > besides, is this a bad thing ? i'd prefer to have devs settle crap > > > themselves than ever contacting devrel :P > > > > It's very relevant, because it supports the idea of QA taking care of > > technical issues on its own. QA can work faster since it's less objected > > do and doesn't need endless committees and documentation -- the > > documentation is the broken code. > > QA team does not care at all about inner workings of devrel > > QA team identifies a misbehaving dev who refuses to change and then hands off > the name/relevant data to devrel ... QA team then is pretty much done with > the issue and the rest is up to devrel to resolve
Pretty much is what I'm after; just want to ensure no more scenarios where stuff gets left broken for 18 months (actual example) due to QA having no means to force people to fix their cruft. This need a proposal, or can the council just do a "make it so" ? ~harring
pgpNdXWnwxORt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
