[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Inconsistent spelling of QT and GNOME

[Hopefully my last mail to this list.]

On 08/11/01, Grant Bowman wrote:
> * Mark Brown <broonie@sirena.org.uk> [011104 15:08]:
> > On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:39:25PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > On 04/11/01, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > > Indeed. Historically, debian-qa have been the people who deal with
> > > > orphaned packages - there are moves to make the BTS-generated traffic

> > > Well, but not only time is changing and I think it's time that debian-qa
> > > changes a bit moving away from the maintaince of orphaned packages to
> > > take care of QA issues.

> > It seems that part of the problem with this has been that most of what
> > would be done by -qa has actually happened on -devel or the ports lists
> > - there is not that much that is specifically the buisness of -qa.

> This is a good observation, Mark.

> Christian, while the definitions of -qa and -devel and such you have
> taken are clear to you, it seems that the history behind what has
> traditionally been done on these lists has a life of it's own.  Hanging
> out on these lists has helped me understand the different roles. 

Right, but as when moved from the past to the presence and now towards
the further, we should insist on keeping always old traditions without
any change. I think it's quite appropriate to check if maybe some
changes are needed to old traditions.

> I like that you brought up this issue here.

But which won't happen in the future for sure.

> > > > Fair enough; there seems to be general agreement that filing wishlist
> > > > bug reports would be a sensible initial approach (though there seems
> > > > to be some disagreement as to who should do it, and whether -devel

> > > Well, I wouldn't say that there's a agreement about this especially
> > > since this wouldn't ensure that really all packages get fixed and either
> > > all packages should be fixed or none.

> Christian, agreement can be passive or active.  I feel there certainly
> is passive agreement.

But passive agreement doesn't really work, since normally as soon as
someone does changes where he thaught that passive agreement would
exist, someone complained loudly.

> I feel your assumption that this wouldn't ensure things getting fixed
> may be flawed.  Whether individual package maintainers follow through or

No, it's based on the reality that it noticed with other changes.

> Would adding a new label to the bug tracking system to help track these
> help you in filing them and keeping track of who has followed through
> and who hasn't?

No, because I won't write any bugreport for this issue and will not
write in the future about a QA issue to this list or the BTS.

> > It strikes me that if you want to get general agreement on stuff then
> > -devel (or in this case the -kde and -gtk-gnome lists) is the place to
> > go.  -qa doesn't seem particularly relevant in that quality isn't an
> > oddment that ought to get hidden away from general view.

> Mark, I agree about the course of action.  

> I also feel (to paraphrase) Christian's point that a "voice" concerning
> QA that also carries some weight is a good one.  This would bring this

Sorry, but in the future you have to look for someone else to write down
his concerns or critics. It's nice to see that you find it good, but
like I just sayed, I already draw my conclusion from the discussion and
so far I won't change it.

> If Debian is increasingly successful, there will be more and more of
> these non-techies interested in Debian.  QA may be a good place to
> establish more of a voice for this.

It makes me sad to say this, but I don't really believe that we'll see
more QA activity in any way in Debian. I'm suspecting that this list
will one day be removed due to no or less traffic and only
debian-qa-packages will stay for the people taking care of orphaned
packages. Everything else will move to debian-devel, like it historical

           Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853

Attachment: pgpxY0aW_rTl9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: