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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings
From:       Chris Reffett <creffett () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-08-12 18:37:36
Message-ID: 53EA5EF0.4040403 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/12/2014 9:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
[snip]
> I don't have a problem with QA recommending new tree policies, but 
> if they're going to do this the QA team ought to first ensure that 
> the team agrees (however they want to govern that), and then 
> communicate the policy before implementing it.  I'd also implement 
> it in documentation before doing so in repoman, otherwise we're 
> going to have a repoman full of 800 rules whose origin is a 
> mystery.  I'm fine with QA policies going into effect by default, 
> but communicating them allows objections to be raised and an
> appeal made to Council if necessary before we get too far along.
> This isn't just about due process - it is hard for developers to
> even comply with a policy they are unaware of.
> 
> Rich
> 
This isn't a QA policy, was not run by us as far as I can tell, and I
don't know where it came from or why it was added. +1 for revert, if
people want to run this by Council or QA later and actually get an
official decision we can talk about putting it back, but for now it's
generating a lot of noise for no real benefit. It's useless checks
like this that make people ignore repoman warnings.

Chris Reffett
QA Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAlPqXvAACgkQ23laikJhg1QvTQCffjAZYIzBGBRlp1l/y6iydzTQ
3d0An12lbTbzr7nWe37qtoay7ktWUAs6
=6c3E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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