-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 08/14/2011 05:48 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> On 08/14/2011 05:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>> On 08/14/2011 02:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>>> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss
>>>>>>>> for the next Council agenda (or a later one).
>>>>>>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council
>>>>>>>> appointed leaders for QA and DevRel.
>>>>>>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA
>>>>>>> and DevRel?
>>>>>> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity
>>>>>> of Gentoo project.
>>>>> How do you weight one project against another one? I see it
>>>>> the other way round: QA and DevRel are only important, if
>>>>> there is some issue not resolved otherwise. But many other
>>>>> projects are always important, since they have to maintain
>>>>> things continuously. While the council could still decide, if
>>>>> DevRel or QA are gone (they just take some workload away),
>>>>> you wont be able to get the council to e.g. maintain our
>>>>> infrastructure, ebuilds or docs.
>>>> 1) If another project slacks, then bad luck for you. Just mask
>>>> and remove the ebuilds ( see recent zope thread ). There is
>>>> nothing we can do about that.
>>> If QA or DevRel slacks, this causes even less work, since they
>>> dont even maintain ebuilds to mask and remove. It may result in
>>> less QA fixes or less mediation between developers, but in any
>>> case, where you need a decision, you could always call for the
>>> council. Those projects do just some delegated work, which is of
>>> course nice, if it comes to the daily work and also, because it
>>> reduces the work, that needs to be done by the council. But
>>> neither is unreplaceable and the decisions of both teams can
>>> already be checked by the council, so i see no real requirement
>>> for additional bureaucracy for those 2 specific teams.
>> I am not talking ajust about decisions. If QA slacks then will
>> then Council step up and maintain the QA in the portage? If devrel
>> slacks then will the Council do all the recruitment/retirement?
>> These projects are vital for the project. I don't know how to
>> explain that in more details.
> Every developer is responsible for the QA of the packages he
> maintains. There are of course some mistakes happening and sometimes
> someone does something wrong (intentionally or not), but if there is
> no active QA team, this just means, that the users will hit those
> issues and report them.
Again, all the problems are not the same. There is a vertical
relationship in this case as well. Sometimes, you need an active QA to
fix a problem before it hits users (remember recent case with broken
python + portage )
> this is not the best way, it still does not mean the end of Gentoo.
Well, driving users away is not a good thing either. If you constantly
break things they will go away sooner or later. We have already lost a
great amount of our former user base and we keep loosing more and more.
The numbers of those who are leaving are certainly more than those who
>>>> 2) Infrastructure is a sensitive team, and does not deal with
>>>> ebuild maintenance and portage directly.
>>> And if infra slacks? Bad luck for you, just mask and remove the
>>> hardware? :-)
>> Like I said, this is not related to portage QA. I only care about
>> the /usr/portage/* parts and what users see from "outside"
> If the master rsync server refuses to run, this will have an impact
> at what users see from "outside" ;-)
Infra is in a good state so I don't really understand why do we need to
deal with this at the moment.
>>> Maybe you should first tell me, how you define activity for QA
>>> (and DevRel)?
>> Ok, and active QA team is a team that fixes severe and other QA
>> problems within 24 hours. Moreover, an active QA team should be
>> there 24/7 for someone who needs an advice for them or needs to
>> complain about a developer that broke portage. If QA was active the
>> breakages from Arfrever's commits would have been spotted months
>> before a severe incident occurs.
> If your requirement for active QA is that high, i have to tell you,
> that practially you will never get the needed manpower together to
> meet those requirements.
I have high requirement ( which are non-realistic ) so even if we
achieve 50% of them would be good enough.
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----