Re: [PEAR-QA] QA karma, clockwerx
[email protected] (till)
| Newsgroups | php.pear.qa |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Ken Guest <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Daniel O'Connor <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hey all, >> I think one of the problems we have is that written and unwritten rules >> aren't really enforced too often. I pissed a lot of active maintainers off >> recently, and did so by breaking an unwritten rule about communication. >> >> I think it would be healthy to bring this issue to a head; so... >> http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=60 >> >> Should clockwerx retain QA karma? >> +1 / -1 >> > > +1 Jeez. Of course. :-) +1 I'm with David (aka izi) and Ken on this -- maybe the automated tools need more work though I think in this case these tools don't solve the problem of not communicating that's all. As I said, I totally understand that releases should be pushed but. But when the maintainers are generally active and available, you could talk to them first. Till