1 |
On 06/15/2016 12:37 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
2 |
> You've got most things right, Rich. But a couple of comments follow. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On 15/06/16 02:25, Rich Freeman wrote: |
5 |
>> 1. Developers wouldn't have access to all the ebuilds in the |
6 |
>> curated repositories. They would only have access to the ones they |
7 |
>> contribute to. |
8 |
> I'm not sure I completely agree with that as a hard rule. E.g. I think |
9 |
> that having an inter-repository QA team would be valuable. |
10 |
> |
11 |
>> 2. Exherbo at least requires peer review for all commits I |
12 |
>> believe. So, even if you're committing to your "own" overlay you're |
13 |
>> still going to need review if your overlay is a curated one. |
14 |
> Once again you are misrepresenting Exherbo. But since this thread is |
15 |
> about Gentoo, I will limit my reply to Gentoo. We should not enforce |
16 |
> anything on a user's repository like this. Instead, I suggest we |
17 |
> maintain a fork of their repository in which we perform review. |
18 |
|
19 |
To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding one |
20 |
requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as curated? |
21 |
|
22 |
Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the maintainer of |
23 |
each repo can update said branch when QA 'approves' a given commit. Then |
24 |
others can 'subscribe' to that branch and development remains unhindered |
25 |
by the QA process in a distributed format. |
26 |
|
27 |
We've settled on git, and anything that replaces git in the future will |
28 |
need an analog or replacement for branches, so it seems like a sound |
29 |
idea to me. |
30 |
|
31 |
Of course, pulling that off in infra and coordinating review is a |
32 |
completely different issue; one that won't be solved with software. |
33 |
-- |
34 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
35 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
36 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |