| 1 |
В Пнд, 24/01/2011 в 21:59 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal пишет: |
| 2 |
> +* Should a situation arise where a developer causes breakage to the point |
| 3 |
> + that it cannot be ascribed to bona-fide mistake, either the QA lead or two |
| 4 |
> + members of the QA team can require the Infra team to temporarily suspend |
| 5 |
> + access to said developer, pending analysis of the causes and resolution |
| 6 |
> + to be provided by QA team within 14 days of said suspension. |
| 7 |
> + Resolution for these kind of issues is completely in hands of the QA team |
| 8 |
> + and only the Gentoo Council can revisit the case. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The last sentence makes QA behave in role of devrel. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
QA and devrel teams have quite different roles: QA team deals with |
| 13 |
technical side while devrel works with humans. Different subjects make |
| 14 |
big difference in methods (how issues should be handled) and results |
| 15 |
(what is resolved issue). Technical issues should be fixed technically |
| 16 |
and the result of QA team's work can be commit to fix issue or policy |
| 17 |
for all developers to follow. That is why QA team is allowed to touch |
| 18 |
any package package in the tree and QA maintains developer |
| 19 |
documentation. Devrel team handles issues by communication with other |
| 20 |
developers and result should be the change in developer's behavior ("to |
| 21 |
make sure the Gentoo developer community is a pleasant environment for |
| 22 |
everyone involved to participate in"). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So although QA should be able to revoke commit access in emergency cases |
| 25 |
still it's devrel job to work with human explain issues and either |
| 26 |
revoke commit permanently or return commit rights. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Peter. |
Archives