Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:29:19 +0100 Paul Waring <pwaring@×××××.com>
wrote:
| On 4/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> wrote:
| > Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't
| > *ever* commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you
| > think it's a trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go
| > wrong even with simple patches -- for example, if you accidentally
| > included some CVS Id: lines in your patch, they'll get nuked when
| > you do the commit. And, if you commit straight to stable, you end up
| > breaking arch rather than just ~arch.
| 
| Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something
| straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their
| CVS access revoked.

Because no-one would enforce it. As it stands right now, you can
repeatedly break eutils.eclass, all of profiles, keywords on any package
you like or anything else you care to name, and nothing will happen, no
matter how many people complain. On the other hand, close a single
bugzilla bug as INVALID and you risk the wrath of our esteemed devrel
team when someone complains.

What I'd *like* to see is all new devs and any dev who has a history of
breaking things committing to a branch rather than the main tree, and
having their commits approved (merged) by their mentor / someone sane.
Plus, possibly, having main-branch commits to things like eutils
restricted to people who really should be touching it. But CVS branches
are pretty much unusable in this respect...

*shrug* not that that's going to happen. Last I heard from someone in
devrel, this kind of thing was apparently the QA herd's area, not
theirs. Riiiiiiiiight...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm