On 14-12-2017 13:39:18 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 14 grudnia 2017 13:21:47 CET, Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> > napisał(a): > >Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification > >for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be > >preferred, but a pointer to a location where said issues can be found > >would do too. > > Maintainer-needed is reason enough. If somebody couldn't be bothered to > maintain what he committed, why should we bother to list the issues?
It seems to me you are avoiding the question. There are no issues with the ebuild. It seems like there is just a false claim there are QA issues, and that is used as waiver to remove the package. > Using repoman and looking at CI mails is also a good idea. repoman full (stable) is happy on 8b4ea0f6d2bed140116f69855d1d3100ea0cf020. qa-reports.gentoo.org has nothing to report gentoo-qa@ ML has nothing to report Please list the QA issues: > >On 14-12-2017 12:10:59 +0000, Andreas Hüttel wrote: > >> Also other QA issues. Apart from that maintainer-needed has nothing to do with Quality of an ebuild, you mentioned it as an QA issue, so I am interested in the "other" QA issues, which seems to suggest 2+ problems in this *ebuild*. For the record, I didn't commit this ebuild. I'm just extremely unhappy about the tiggerhippy response of QA which in my opinion is totally uncalled for, and am extremely worried about the integrity of QA because of seemingly false claims to justify actions. Thanks, Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
