| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 08:17:38PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I'm not going into review systems here at all, I'm simply trying to have |
| 3 |
> > a policy of what changes are welcomed/blocked WITHOUT interaction from |
| 4 |
> > the listed maintainer(s) of a given package/herd. |
| 5 |
> add a new field to metadata.xml that declares the state. make it an enum: |
| 6 |
> ANYTHING_GOES (the default) |
| 7 |
> REQUIRES_HERD |
| 8 |
> REQUIRES_MAINTAINER |
| 9 |
I wish it was that easy. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Despite being ANYTHING_GOES on most of my packages, I don't want people |
| 12 |
to add giant features like qmail patchbombs; so we need to figure out |
| 13 |
something like the Debian NMU listing of what's acceptable. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Does this need to be coded in the metadata? |
| 16 |
Does a version bump count as an acceptable trivial change? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > If they have to ask me to review a trivial patch, I've already failed |
| 19 |
> > them. I don't want ANY gatekeeping, I want them to go and commit it |
| 20 |
> > already. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Then extending THAT to Gerrit, who is responsible/allowed to hit that |
| 23 |
> > web interface submit button? |
| 24 |
> have gerrit check metadata.xml and see if the policy declared in there lines |
| 25 |
> up with the gerrit approvals attained. blam, done. |
| 26 |
That's why we need the policies on who/what first. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead |
| 31 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 32 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
Archives