[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 games-strategy/openxcom: openxcom-1.0.0.e
From:       Rich Freeman <rich0 () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-06-15 2:12:23
Message-ID: CAGfcS_nqXZNP1mQCp3y=hFrBrxifKd9=CawFJ5LcY5WRTFnsFg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:17:49 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Sure, those who commit are responsible for QA, but in general we
>> should be going easy on them, especially for minor stuff.
>
> Nobody was going hard on anyone. hasufell replied to an automated
> e-mail, blaming no one in particular for a few issues he found. mva
> replied that Maxim was not responsible. I replied that having
> non-responsible proxy committers is a problem.[1]

Yup.  I agree there is a balance here.  It lies somewhere between devs
who commit for proxy maintainers basically being full maintainers and
having no accountability whatsoever.

As you pointed out, no big deal here.

Rich

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