1 |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> I should point out that: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> 1) CI is detecting this kind of issues much faster than you are, |
7 |
>> and reporting them both to the committer and to a *dedicated* mailing |
8 |
>> list, so your mail is completely redundant and delayed. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> That sounds like a somewhat better solution, although sometimes it can |
11 |
> make sense to send email to where the developers are already, rather |
12 |
> than putting the onus on them to join a separate mailing list. |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
I don't think the idea is to put the onus on people to join a separate |
16 |
list so much as to give people the freedom to NOT join that list. |
17 |
|
18 |
Why is it necessary to notify every developer that somebody has not |
19 |
run repoman? For everybody who does what they're supposed to do, |
20 |
there is no lesson to learn, and it is just noise. |
21 |
|
22 |
For people interested in building tree-wide QA tools or who are |
23 |
interested in overall trends, then they can mine the list archives. |
24 |
If they have significant observations they can always post here or on |
25 |
planet or whatever, and that would have a much higher S/N ratio. |
26 |
|
27 |
>> 2) Spamming the developer mailing list is completely unprofessional |
28 |
>> here. If you are unhappy about those mails, just disable them, and stop |
29 |
>> blaming people for your misery. Trying to prove others incompetent |
30 |
>> helps nobody. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Come on... I think it's fair game to share news about people breaking |
33 |
> things on the gentoo-dev mailing list. Naming & shaming can be useful |
34 |
> sometimes. |
35 |
|
36 |
I think naming and shaming is a short-term game. It might have |
37 |
immediate effects, but it tends to create a culture where nobody wants |
38 |
to get involved, because they don't want to be the person getting |
39 |
named and shamed. |
40 |
|
41 |
We should certainly provide information to people about their errors |
42 |
so that they can fix them. We should certainly have this information |
43 |
available to people making tools that can help people avoid errors, |
44 |
since error is human nature. There is no need to hide this |
45 |
information, but we shouldn't have a culture where we're making it an |
46 |
emphasis so that we can all go around pointing fingers. |
47 |
|
48 |
If somebody is a consistent problem and is impervious to attempts to |
49 |
work with them (whatever the ultimate reason), we don't need to make |
50 |
them a social pariah until they decide to quit. We just need to have |
51 |
QA revoke their commit rights. |
52 |
|
53 |
I'm a little concerned that stuff like this starts to end up working |
54 |
like collective punishment. Fred over here broke the tree, so nobody |
55 |
gets to have desert or recess today; you all know what to do with Fred |
56 |
when he's looking to sit next to somebody at lunch and when the bus |
57 |
drops you off at home later today. |
58 |
|
59 |
I don't think that was the original motivation; I think frustration |
60 |
with this being a frequent problem is more the issue and is quite |
61 |
understandable. I just don't think this is the right solution. |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Rich |