[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeL
From:       hasufell <hasufell () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2013-12-28 18:35:42
Message-ID: 52BF19FE.3000807 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 12/28/2013 04:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 03:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>>>>> That's what I call "ignoring the rest". You do not communicate,
>>>>> you do not file bugs, you just go and do stuff.
>>>>
>>>> That kind of behaviour is what the QA team is supposed to be able
>>>> to address. You should raise this issue with them rather than
>>>> accusing each other on the lists.
>>>
>>> I completely agree with this. I feel that this thread is a sign that
>>> there is a problem on how the new QA communicates problems with the
>>> developers that cause them. I read the entire thread and I still don't
>>> think there is an agreement on who broke the tree and why. Would a
>>> private discussion be better before going publicly with accusations?
>>
>> Introducing repoman warnings deliberately is wrong. Point. 
>> QA can do trivial fixes. Point. 
>>
>> None of these two points needs any discussion.
>>
> Certainly, but look at the size and contents of this thread and now tell
> me if what you said is clear to everyone. It certainly isn't to the
> person who caused the problem so what I am saying is that maybe it's
> better first to communicate the problem with him before starting a
> public heated discussion.
> 

If you read the whole thread, you would know that I did communicate
privately beforehand.

As in 90% of the cases I guess it was still a mistake to post (this) on
dev ML. I definitely do not need your help to address this problem, so
please don't feed this thread any further.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]