| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 4:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:47:47 +0900 Alice Ferrazzi wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018, 16:39 Fabian Groffen, <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> > Completely agreeing with Sergei, with some additional suggestions: |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > On 28-07-2018 23:14:12 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
| 10 |
>> > > On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 00:40:18 +0300 |
| 11 |
>> > > Mikle Kolyada <zlogene@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
>> > > |
| 13 |
>> > > > Hello, |
| 14 |
>> > > > |
| 15 |
>> > > > The Gentoo QA team would like to introduce the following policy that |
| 16 |
>> > > > would be applied to individuals breaking the state and quality of the |
| 17 |
>> > > > main gentoo.git tree |
| 18 |
>> > > > |
| 19 |
>> > > > ( as we do not have this strictly documented yet): |
| 20 |
>> > > > |
| 21 |
>> > > > <policy> |
| 22 |
>> > > > |
| 23 |
>> > > > If recommended |
| 24 |
>> > > |
| 25 |
>> > > It's not called "recommended" but "enforced". |
| 26 |
>> > |
| 27 |
>> > I agree. If you put penalties on these, they become hard rules. I |
| 28 |
>> > think that change should be discussed by the council perhaps? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> +1. Also please provide some tool for developers to check for |
| 31 |
> compliance to these rules, e.g. repoman full must perform all these |
| 32 |
> checks. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> If developers have no way to verify correctness of the code, they |
| 35 |
> can't be held responsible for accidental violation of the rules. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
>> > > > the standard QA |
| 38 |
>> > > > procedure is: |
| 39 |
>> > > > |
| 40 |
>> > > > 1.) Two warnings granted by QA team, after two independent breakages |
| 41 |
>> > > > 2.) Revoking the commit access for 14 days |
| 42 |
>> > > > |
| 43 |
>> > > > These violations will be evaluated individually by all QA team members. |
| 44 |
>> > > > Warnings can be revoked, if during 6 months period a developer makes at |
| 45 |
>> > > > least 20 non trivial changes not producing more breakages. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Why 6 months period? Why time frame at all? 20 good commits sounds |
| 48 |
> OK. If you want time frame, then you should set autoexpire of |
| 49 |
> warning as well. |
| 50 |
> Best regards, |
| 51 |
> Andrew Savchenko |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
That reads to me as "warnings become permanent after six months if not |
| 54 |
remediated with 20 non-trivial good commits", not that they expire. |
Archives