Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:07:03 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing that it does. I believe the QA team expect developers to *ask* when they want QA to intervene on a thing like this. There aren't enough people in QA to find every problem in the tree on their own... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:07:03 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing that it does. I believe the QA team expect developers to *ask* when they want QA to intervene on a thing like this. There aren't enough people in QA to find every problem in the tree on their own... -- Ciaran McCreesh There is no motivation to ask if the developer in question doesn't care about breaking the tree in the first place. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:07:03 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing that it does. I believe the QA team expect developers to *ask* when they want QA to intervene on a thing like this. There aren't enough people in QA to find every problem in the tree on their own... There is no motivation to ask if the developer in question doesn't care about breaking the tree in the first place. It doesn't have to be the developer in question who brings the issue to QA's attention... The problem, as I understand it, is this: The tree is big. There are lots of changes. Some of these changes are breakages. Some of these breakages can be detected automatically, which QA are fairly good at doing. Some of these breakages can't be, and QA won't know about these until someone reports it to them. Now, the tricky part. Some breakages, like this one, are the result of things that aren't directly tree changes, but rather an ongoing general change. Developers are generally expected to do the maintenance, but after a certain point, it's no longer worth waiting for them. QA can take over or authorise someone to take over in these situations, but only if an interested party steps up and says to QA it's about time something gets done about this... There's this general feeling that QA are expected to know everything and deal with every breakage. That isn't realistic, and I strongly suspect it's being used by certain people as a way of passing blame onto someone else. QA is, first and foremost, the responsibility of package maintainers. Secondly, it's the responsibility of arch teams. Only if both of those fail should the QA team get involved. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał: Some breakages, like this one, There wasn't any additional breakage. Not working and not compiling package can't be broken any more. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 15:38 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:07:03 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing that it does. I believe the QA team expect developers to *ask* when they want QA to intervene on a thing like this. There aren't enough people in QA to find every problem in the tree on their own... You're absolutely correct: I just wanted to clear up something I didn't state too clearly in my original email. In the bit you quoted, I was referring to QA as a process and mindset issue, rather than the QA team. So I certainly wasn't trying to put blame or onus on the QA team, but rather mentioning the fact (as you have, too :) that QA as an idea and culture seems to take a backseat. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
Hi, virtual/x11 has been deprecated for some time and now that all packages that only use it have been removed it is time to mask and remove it. I have put it in package.mask now - please fix your overlays in case you still use virtual/x11 somewhere. It will be removed in 30 days as per the usual schedule. Best regards, Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał: I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it. These not numerous packages still using virtual/x11 can be fixed after masking it. Almost nobody uses them. Masking virtual/x11 could urge some developers to fix these packages. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:45:38 +0200 arfrever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał: I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it. These not numerous packages still using virtual/x11 can be fixed after masking it. Almost nobody uses them. Masking virtual/x11 could urge some developers to fix these packages. Breaking the tree, and thus end user systems, is not an acceptable way of getting people to fix things. It doesn't make any difference to developers who haven't fixed their packages, only to users. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:45:38 +0200 arfrever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisaÅ#8218;: I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it. These not numerous packages still using virtual/x11 can be fixed after masking it. Almost nobody uses them. Masking virtual/x11 could urge some developers to fix these packages. Breaking the tree, and thus end user systems, is not an acceptable way of getting people to fix things. It doesn't make any difference to developers who haven't fixed their packages, only to users. It's acceptable to me. I'd rather see us make progress than postpone changes for months while devs bicker about changes to be made. That would not be the case if say, people had the balls to just fix things in the tree. However we have this fun system where you have to incessantly contact the maintainer in order to get anything done lest they cry and moan and run to the council because 'you touched their precious package'. -Alec PS: For those non-native speakers, portions of my reply were tongue-in-cheek. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
Alec Warner wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 09:08:01PM CDT] It's acceptable to me. I'd rather see us make progress than postpone changes for months while devs bicker about changes to be made. That would not be the case if say, people had the balls to just fix things in the tree. However we have this fun system where you have to incessantly contact the maintainer in order to get anything done lest they cry and moan and run to the council because 'you touched their precious package'. Just for the record, that's not supposed to be the system. The reason we give such sweeping CVS privs is precisely so that people can fix broken packages. Just don't break anything when you do it. If you do, then you deserve to have the council thump you. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgppQqyBf4H2A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 03:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Well, if it's reached the take drastic action stage (which, let's
face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a
better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going
to get any sympathy from anyone. Get QA to issue an official
proclamation first if you'd like to legitimise it completely -- the
Council has already given them authority to do that...
+1 on this, Ciaran.
Honestly, *breaking* the tree knowingly should be a no-no. In fact, it
should be more of a no-no than pissing ${tribal-possessive-developer}
off. If someone gets miffed because you (QA and/or treecleaners) *fix*
their package after they've been non-responsive, then I reckon the
problem is *entirely* on that developer and not on QA.
Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to
take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing
that it does.
Thanks,
Seemant
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
