Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable-bot is down. Temporary? Forever? Can we have a contacts page for it?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:46:58
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr937j4yhK+f+CZk+B0AokDaeRSF8tKeMmp7teEb-0Evgw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable-bot is down. Temporary? Forever? Can we have a contacts page for it? by Michael Palimaka
1 On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:57 AM Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>
2 wrote:
3
4 > On 10/8/19 7:21 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
5 > > In any case, since many people *do* rely on it, maybe we should declare
6 > it
7 > > official? [+]
8 > >
9 > > And, if that's OK with both of you, move it onto infra hardware?
10 > >
11 > > Happy to sponsor both for the next council meeting agenda.
12 > >
13 > >
14 > > [+] At some point the one remaining whiner doesnt count anymore.
15 > >
16 >
17 > In the past, infra has been understandably hesitant to take on new
18 > services due to staffing issues.
19 >
20 > Additionally, I understand that the current infra design does not easily
21 > allow granular access control, preventing non-infra members from easily
22 > performing maintenance on individual services.
23 >
24 > Has this situation changed? I doubt infra want to take responsibility
25 > for the bot, and I don't fancy the hassle of trying to find people to
26 > poke things on my behalf.
27 >
28
29 Things have not changed. We don't need to run the bot, we just need some
30 clearer contact info for it IMHO.
31
32 I don't think the reliability of the bot is really that different from
33 official infra services, but it was unclear who owned it and so there was
34 confusion; and I think the confusion is the key thing we are looking to
35 resolve here.
36
37 -A