1i5t5.duncan at cox
Jul 8, 2011, 4:35 PM
Post #2 of 3
DJ Cozatt posted on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:46:38 -0400 as excerpted:
Re: Digest of email@example.com issue 367 (13009-13035)
[In reply to]
> Is a discussion/flame about the report upstream qa messages.
> Help me out here guys and weigh in. (dons flame suit)
FWIW, glad to see someone dealing with those QA warnings, but one picks
their battles based on time and skillset available, and that's one I've
deliberately chosen to ignore.
My feeling is, the gentoo maintainers obviously see the warnings when
they test for version bumps, etc, so they know about them. Since they
already do know about them, it does nothing but irritate them to file
bugs about them, especially when one doesn't really have the coding
skills to help much, and the package in general remains working.
Meanwhile I've picked the upstreams I'm involved with and try not to
think too much about the others, as there simply isn't time for all of
So mostly I just ignore the QA warnings unless something actually breaks,
figuring the gentoo folks already know about them, and unless it's on the
list of upstreams I'm already involved with or something is really
broken, given I don't generally have the skills to provide a fix in any
case, it simply falls off the bottom of my priority scale.
That said, why are the QA notices there if the general user isn't
equipped to deal with them? Remove them?
I'd say no. At a minimum, they serve a shaming function. Ideally, the
issues would be fixed right away, most ideally in testing, before the
package is ever unmasked in-tree, but if that doesn't happen, and in the
real world it obviously doesn't all the time or we'd not be seeing the
warnings (devs have time issues too), the warnings do serve as a gentle
prod and reminder that there are issues that need dealt with. And over
time, hopefully, the brown-bag (embarrassment, the reference is to
someone so embarrassed that they wish to cover their head with a bag so
as to remain anonymous) factor of having so many warnings in one's
packages gets big enough to bump them on a devs priority list, and they
get fixed. If those warnings were to disappear except when activated by
some developer flag, the brown-bag factor would be far lower, and perhaps
fewer of them would be fixed.
I believe that shaming function is a big part of why those QA warnings
are there in the first place. Removing them is thus not a good idea.
Plus, they motivate users (like you) who DO have the skills and time to
help out, occasionally. That's not a bad thing. =:^) Certainly not, for
an all-volunteer distro that's chronically understaffed. =:^\
But as I said, for me, I pick my battles, and that's not one I've picked.
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman