| 1 |
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:42:19 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> 1. It makes sense that in the event that a "Rogue" developer is |
| 5 |
> wreaking havoc on the tree that QA can get infra to suspend their |
| 6 |
> commit rights. That's safeguarding the tree in the face of imminent |
| 7 |
> harm. This should generally be limited to serious issues (people |
| 8 |
> running scripts to mass-update packages, bad changes to system |
| 9 |
> packages, etc), and not because there is some dispute over whether |
| 10 |
> some obscure package should or should-not be masked. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
No, it makes no sense at all. /Anyone/ can ask infra to do that, users |
| 13 |
as well as developers, and infra will then probably want to see some |
| 14 |
details of commits or other evidence to support the suspension. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You simply file a bug report, make sure devrel and infra know about it, |
| 17 |
and just make a lot of noise until stuff gets fixed - if it's all that |
| 18 |
bad. We've never needed QA to do it for us before, have we? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> 2. I don't think it makes sense for QA to discipline developers |
| 21 |
> permanently in these cases. They should suspend access pending Devrel |
| 22 |
> resolution of the issue. Devrel should of course strongly consider |
| 23 |
> the input of QA. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That should be anyone's input, really. If a Gentoo Linux user finds a |
| 26 |
nasty `rm -rf /' timebomb, I suppose he could point that out to infra |
| 27 |
directly. And it's infra that suspends access, by the way. And devrel |
| 28 |
should be the intermediate between developers. And QA "aims to keep the |
| 29 |
portage tree in a consistent state"[1]. Wait, everyone is already in |
| 30 |
place? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
What makes QA so special? If we grant them this new power, then that is |
| 33 |
what makes them special, I guess. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
jer |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/ |
Archives