| 1 |
On 2011.01.28 23:03, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[snip] |
| 4 |
> Only case where we don't want Devrel interfere with QA decision at |
| 5 |
> all |
| 6 |
> is when someone Intentionaly breaks main tree. Seriously if someone |
| 7 |
> really hit this issue i don't actually want him to apologize to |
| 8 |
> another |
| 9 |
> team and pretend like it never happened, i would prefer him long gone |
| 10 |
> in |
| 11 |
> a place far far away :) We really just want keep control over |
| 12 |
> removing |
| 13 |
> access for people that does breakage to main tree just for the |
| 14 |
> breakage |
| 15 |
> itself, aka it can't be excused in any way. |
| 16 |
> """ |
| 17 |
[snip] |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Its not QAs decision, if the breakage was intentional or not. A single |
| 20 |
body, in this case, QA, cannot be both the police and the judicary. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
QA can and should be capable of finding wrongs, preventing further |
| 23 |
damage and causing the problem to get fixed. Thats damage limitaion. |
| 24 |
If preventing further damage involves revoking commit rights pending |
| 25 |
full investigation, thats fine by me. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Determining the root cause, and determining long term prevention takes |
| 28 |
some investigation. QA may present evidence but its Devrels job to |
| 29 |
weigh the evidence and pass sentence. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Tom |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Regards, |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Roy Bamford |
| 39 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 40 |
gentoo-ops |
| 41 |
forum-mods |
| 42 |
trustees |
Archives