1 |
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 16:29 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> Mark Loeser wrote: |
3 |
> > Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this |
4 |
> > enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people |
5 |
> > believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the |
6 |
> > council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear |
7 |
> > alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> As Stuart mentioned, this is not a good idea. If the maintainer |
10 |
> disagrees with QA-made changes, the changes should be reverted until a |
11 |
> higher-level decision is made. This mirrors FreeBSD policy [1], which |
12 |
> seems to be working quite well for them. A particularly relevant part is |
13 |
> this: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> "Any disputed change must be backed out pending resolution of the |
16 |
> dispute if requested by a maintainer. Security related changes may |
17 |
> override a maintainer's wishes at the Security Officer's discretion." |
18 |
|
19 |
I think I agree with the part that security@ having near final say. |
20 |
|
21 |
If I had to put a pecking order together how I think it would |
22 |
look/should be would result in something like the following. |
23 |
|
24 |
gentoo-(infra|council) |
25 |
- gentoo-security |
26 |
- gentoo-(devrel|base) |
27 |
-gentoo-qa |
28 |
- gentoo-(hardened|server) |
29 |
- gentoo-(desktop|misc|maintainers|etc..) |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
33 |
Gentoo Linux |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |