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