Hi guys! (and girls of course) Yesterday, my ADSL connection came on line, so this weekend I will probably finally have time _and_oppertunity_ to finish my WNPP cleanup/watch script [1]. I've been convinced by Bunk et al (Adrian, please join us again :-(( ) that automated bug cleanup isn't preferable at al, and that it would be better if my script, instead of closing and renaming bugs without any human interaction, would just send a status reports to debian-qa@l.d.o and/or d-d-anounce@l.d.o. This means that real humans will actually have to (and will be able to) verify and look into WNPP bugs that have to be renamed (ITA-->O, ITA-->RFP, ITP-->RFP), or have to be removed (ITA's that already have been adopted, ITP's that already have been packaged, etc) and packages that will have to been removed from sid/woody (O's with RC bugs, O's that have been orphaned too long, etc). This will probably generate some work for QA (yes, that is us), and I hope that it will be a catalyst for the reform of the QA ``command structure'' that has been proposed here last December. I think that such a restructuring will be very neccesary, because I don't really have a concrete idea of what QA is doing at the moment [2]. I really think a clearer idea of what QA is and what is exactly does, is necessary. [1] See also <20011117173222.A23543@richard.a-es2.oi> (mailed to debian-qa@l.d.o last November) [2] Which of couse doesn't mean that indiviuals that consider themselves part of QA, don't do any thing useful. On the contrary. -- Kind regards, +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce | |--------------------------------| que l'on va faire, a quoi | | zoetekw@phys.uu.nl | bon le faire? | | bas@A-Es2.uu.nl | Pablo Picasso | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
Attachment:
pgpGwDbHjXJqt.pgp
Description: PGP signature