Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Tomáš Chvátal" <scarabeus@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Glep 48 update (as nominated for next meeting)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:06:13
Message-Id: 4D434B45.2090607@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Glep 48 update (as nominated for next meeting) by Rich Freeman
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Dne 28.1.2011 23:42, Rich Freeman napsal(a):
5 > 2011/1/28 Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o>:
6 >> So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
7 >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
8 >>
9 >> Please comment and help us improve the "english" of the whole document
10 >> so it gets accepted :)
11 >
12 > My only general comments are:
13
14 Wow what a nice and long reply, thanks :)
15
16 >
17 > 1. It makes sense that in the event that a "Rogue" developer is
18 > wreaking havoc on the tree that QA can get infra to suspend their
19 > commit rights. That's safeguarding the tree in the face of imminent
20 > harm. This should generally be limited to serious issues (people
21 > running scripts to mass-update packages, bad changes to system
22 > packages, etc), and not because there is some dispute over whether
23 > some obscure package should or should-not be masked.
24 >
25 > 2. I don't think it makes sense for QA to discipline developers
26 > permanently in these cases. They should suspend access pending Devrel
27 > resolution of the issue. Devrel should of course strongly consider
28 > the input of QA.
29 >
30 QA is not to discipline any developers. Everyone of us can cause
31 breakage, heck even i killed profiles once :)
32 Only case where we don't want Devrel interfere with QA decision at all
33 is when someone Intentionaly breaks main tree. Seriously if someone
34 really hit this issue i don't actually want him to apologize to another
35 team and pretend like it never happened, i would prefer him long gone in
36 a place far far away :) We really just want keep control over removing
37 access for people that does breakage to main tree just for the breakage
38 itself, aka it can't be excused in any way.
39 """
40 Lets say you have this change for eclass which affects large part of the
41 tree and on -dev ml people including QA members told you not to do so,
42 yet you still proceed with the commit thus breaking part of the main
43 tree in effect.
44 In this situation normal accidental breakage or uneducated commit can't
45 count in cause you were told of that it is not the way you should do it.
46 So only way it can be described is deliberate act of main tree destruction.
47 Since QA team is responsible for overall quality of main tree it is
48 obvious we as team can't trust such person while he (or she) does not
49 listen to us. So we would like to be the ones who decide that they
50 should not be permitted to do direct commits to main tree. (they for
51 sure can stay developers and write documentation and help in other areas
52 they want to)
53 """
54
55 > If Devrel is not adequately doing its job then this should be
56 > escalated to the Devrel lead, or if necessary to the council (who can
57 > step in if truly necessary). In the face of imminent harm QA can
58 > always get a temporary ban on commits from infra. If this goes back
59 > and forth (QA banning, Devrel unbanning) then I'm sure the council
60 > will step in.
61 >
62 > So, in a nutshell here is how it works:
63 >
64 > 1. Developer starts messing something up (some crazy script is
65 > committing junk to the tree, or dev is making some change to critical
66 > package, or whatever).
67 > 2. QA notices, or is told, or whatever.
68 > 3. QA tries to ping dev - with severity of problem dictating how long
69 > they should wait to resolve directly.
70 > 4. QA determines that dev is unwilling to resolve a critical issue,
71 > or cannot be reached and the matter can't wait.
72 > 5. QA contacts infra, and infra suspends commit access to contain the damage.
73 > 6a. QA initiates repairs (whatever this takes - they don't need to
74 > personally do the work, etc).
75 > 6b. QA logs complaint with DevRel.
76 > 7. Devrel follows their process to resolve issue. Developer remains
77 > banned until Devrel feels they can be unbanned, or dismissed. Devrel
78 > takes input from QA.
79 You actually pretty well described how we work when somebody breaks main
80 tree without its primary intention to nuke it off. Which is still in
81 effect with this update :) (everyone can make typo or forget to ask
82 about something and accidentally do something disasterous :P)
83
84 """
85 +* In case a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA
86 + lead may request commit rights of given developer to be suspended by
87 + the Infra team. Devrel should then proceed to evaluate the situation, by
88 + finding a compromise or permanently revoking those rights.
89 """
90 >
91 > If the issue here is that the Devrel and QA leads differ as to some
92 > matter of policy or whatever, the council should be asked to resolve.
93 > While the QA and Devrel teams may tend to self-govern, I don't think
94 > the intent is that we end up having "three" Gentoos - the one ruled by
95 > Devrel, the one ruled by QA, and the one ruled by the Council (not to
96 > mention the Trustees).
97 >
98 > In practice I haven't really seen any situations where we're really
99 > having problems over this, so I don't want to start a war over
100 > something that isn't even a problem.
101 >
102 > In any case, the solution for developers is simple:
103 >
104 > 1. Don't do stupid stuff to the tree such that you tick EVERYBODY off.
105 > 2. If you want to do something to the tree that you think is right
106 > but which might tick a lot of people off (whether they are QA or not),
107 > post notice of it in -dev first.
108 > 3. If you and QA can't work it out before you do it, then work it out
109 > with the council or something.
110 > 4. Generally act like an adult. :)
111 >
112 > Ok, that was probably overly verbose. I don't see any issues with the
113 > wording in the diff - this is more a matter of which is the right
114 > policy.
115 >
116 > Finally, if Devrel, QA, and the Council have already talked this out
117 > and agree that QA is in the best place to police technical commit
118 > issues, then pipe this email to /dev/null...
119 Yep QA is responsible for technical aspect of commits where Devrel
120 handles the human side of it, so we usually give what we gather on named
121 bad developer to Devrel to decide what to do with him.
122 >
123 > Rich
124 >
125 Tom
126 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
127 Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
128 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
129
130 iEYEARECAAYFAk1DS0UACgkQHB6c3gNBRYcVFgCdHxzgXCepKzj0SY3oWCaKQpKR
131 yDYAnj6Wg1Ew7Y8xtypkUXeoQ699/MNf
132 =J775
133 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Glep 48 update (as nominated for next meeting) Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>