Christopher Stone schrieb: > On 11/26/06, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> I'd really like it if someone that cares (in an >>>> ideal world: the QA-Sig) and has some spare cycles just would step up >>>> and fix all those stuff that easily fixable -- this policy allow that: >>>> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToModifyWhichPackages >>> This doesn't fit too well into your scheme, as it results in some >>> volunteers breaking stuff, other volunteers trying to fix the breakage. >>> When the community gets >> Well, I think we need someone like a QA group to fix things for other >> people now and then. But the QA Sig could also handle what you outlined >> above, e.g. somehow put pressure on the contributors so they fix their >> stuff on their own. > IIRC, tibbs did this a few months ago on a package that was in the > report for months and after he launched a rebuild the maintainer came > on this message list and lambasted tibbs for launching a rebuild. > tibbs then got upset and said he would never attempt to help out in > this regard again. Yeah, I remember. > I think there was some technical reason why the rebuild should not > have been done, so there needs to be a way for a developer to say, I > cannot fix this dependency problem because of some other issue, and > request QA SIGs to not push rebuilds. A open bug should be enough as the one that does the update and rebuild should look at the open bugs before requesting the rebuild. CU thl -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
