| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:47:37PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:30:53PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Infra doesn't even do retirement beyond when _devrel_ asks them to. If |
| 4 |
> > that process is slow, ask for help and someone will chip in and improve |
| 5 |
> > it (mainly to minimize bottleneck involved). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> OK, fine. Devrel does not have an established track record of retiring |
| 8 |
> devs who are otherwise inactive. Please fix this. Please also get an |
| 9 |
> agreement from them that they're going to be willing to take on the |
| 10 |
> additional load of these arch testers. Then please articulate the process |
| 11 |
> that will be followed to ensure they're actively tracked and retired |
| 12 |
> if/when they fall off the map. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Devrel doesn't have much issues in actually retiring a dev from where |
| 15 |
I'm sitting. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The problem is in detection- an infra issue that could be solved by |
| 18 |
either allowing normal devrel people to run the detection scripts |
| 19 |
themselves (rather then asking infra to do so), or in modifying the |
| 20 |
commit hooks so it pushes info into ldap (which we can access). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Again... setup cost (something I'm more then willing to implement). |
| 23 |
~harring |
Archives