| 1 |
On Friday 21 June 2013 20:06:31 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 07:40:03PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday 21 June 2013 14:50:54 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > From what I've read on the list recently, there's a lot of demand for |
| 5 |
> > > non-maintainer updates to ebuilds. Esp. with the upcoming Git |
| 6 |
> > > migration, I predict there will be a much larger influx of changes |
| 7 |
> > > from users. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > seems like we're somewhat approaching it the wrong way around. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> [Snip giant suggestions re gerrit/review-systems] |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'm not going into review systems here at all, I'm simply trying to have |
| 14 |
> a policy of what changes are welcomed/blocked WITHOUT interaction from |
| 15 |
> the listed maintainer(s) of a given package/herd. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
add a new field to metadata.xml that declares the state. make it an enum: |
| 18 |
ANYTHING_GOES (the default) |
| 19 |
REQUIRES_HERD |
| 20 |
REQUIRES_MAINTAINER |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> If they have to ask me to review a trivial patch, I've already failed |
| 23 |
> them. I don't want ANY gatekeeping, I want them to go and commit it |
| 24 |
> already. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Then extending THAT to Gerrit, who is responsible/allowed to hit that |
| 27 |
> web interface submit button? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
have gerrit check metadata.xml and see if the policy declared in there lines |
| 30 |
up with the gerrit approvals attained. blam, done. |
| 31 |
-mike |
Archives