| 1 |
On 06/16/2016 12:35 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 16/06/16 09:24, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding |
| 4 |
>> one requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as |
| 5 |
>> curated? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the maintainer |
| 8 |
>> of each repo can update said branch when QA 'approves' a given |
| 9 |
>> commit. Then others can 'subscribe' to that branch and development |
| 10 |
>> remains unhindered by the QA process in a distributed format. |
| 11 |
> I'm not sure what you mean by unhindered. I didn't mean for my idea to |
| 12 |
> create any hindrance. My idea was to fork their repository, and have |
| 13 |
> some dev(s) take the responsibility of merging from the user. Or, we |
| 14 |
> could do what Exherbo does, just let them carry on and trust them, and |
| 15 |
> only (perhaps temporarily) remove their repository if we find them |
| 16 |
> guilty of some wrongdoing. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> While I'm not axiomatically opposed to your idea, I think it may |
| 19 |
> create noise if everybody makes a gentoo-ci branch, and most of them |
| 20 |
> are close to worthless. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue hacking |
| 23 |
and/or breaking things, or whatever else, without worrying about their |
| 24 |
"official" branch. We could have a standard that assumes Gentoo pulls |
| 25 |
their 'master' branch and they keep other stuff in 'dev', or some other |
| 26 |
model. We'll need to decide on *some* branch, but putting it in writing |
| 27 |
would make things clearer for prospective repo maintainers. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 30 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 31 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives