1 |
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> Stefan Schweizer wrote: |
3 |
> > Hi, |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize |
6 |
> > bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the |
7 |
> > devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > This is also a submission for the new council when it meets. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Best regards, |
12 |
> > Stefan |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Errr. on -devrel you noted you would just make people take the ebuild |
15 |
> quiz and now devrel wants a GLEP again? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I'll state the same thing I stated on that list. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> A. This already happens. I had bugs access for MONTHS before becoming |
20 |
> a dev; I got assigned to the portage buggroup and I could edit portage |
21 |
> bugs. Anyone already on the portage team could add me, so no nastiness |
22 |
> for recruiters (or anyone else). |
23 |
If people are randomly given bugzie privs (or any other privs) this is |
24 |
something we need to fix. And just to make this clear to all - handing |
25 |
out privs is only half the equation and it's already hard enough for |
26 |
recruiters to keep track of devs even though we have well defined |
27 |
procedures etc. for that. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> B. Double bonus is that I don't even see why a GLEP is required? This |
30 |
> is a small subset of users using one resource (bugzilla) so perhaps |
31 |
> Infra and devrel and you can work out the requisite groups? Why is |
32 |
> there all this red tape? |
33 |
Because it's going to affect all devs if people don't need to pass |
34 |
quizzes (or we lower the threshhold substantially) before they can |
35 |
reassign, close, reopen etc. the maintainers bugs. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Create a group; come up with a subset of bugs that they can access, add |
38 |
> user to group -> done. As long as they can't access my bugs; I really |
39 |
> shouldn't (and trust me I don't) care. |
40 |
Who's going to admin that? We already have the Arch Tester / Herd Tester |
41 |
projects that defines a proper way of achieving the goal as I see it. |
42 |
|
43 |
Only problem with Herd Testers / Arch Testers compared to genstefs goal |
44 |
is that HTs/ATs deal with packages in the tree while sunrise |
45 |
contributors deal with packages outside the tree. |
46 |
|
47 |
And personally I'd very much like to draw the line somewhere. Genstef |
48 |
made the GLEP extremely vague regarding contributors (on purpose) but |
49 |
guess what? Everybody who files a new bug, submits a fixed ebuild etc. |
50 |
are contributors. So should we just remove all the restrictions now? |
51 |
This is definitely something we need to define before moving on, no |
52 |
matter if the GLEP is eventually denied or accepted. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> C. No real standard on any other fora. I don't need a GLEP to add |
55 |
> someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my |
56 |
> project's IRC channel. I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my |
57 |
> mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project |
58 |
> aliases. Why does this require one? |
59 |
Because this is about the entire Gentoo project and affects us all in a |
60 |
very direct way as opposed to random projects. |
61 |
|
62 |
Regards, |
63 |
Bryan Østergaard |
64 |
-- |
65 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |