Re: [PEAR-QA] QA karma, clockwerx

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, till <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Dare I say, I'm with Till on this one?
Rattle our cages and ask first - some of us may have tracts of code in a
unworkable state that's about to be finished off and committed back to svn.

Furthermore, I think whatever "unwritten rules" there are, should be added
to the written ones at
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=60- that RFC could
do with some level of update.

Till
>
>


-- 
http://blogs.linux.ie/kenguest/