1 |
>>Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges |
2 |
>>at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers |
3 |
>>for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them |
4 |
>>commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is |
5 |
>>supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP |
6 |
>>goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the |
7 |
>>arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>>-Steve |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned |
13 |
> developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit |
14 |
> access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask |
15 |
> for it and take any requisite quizzes. |
16 |
|
17 |
You also have misunderstood my point. I've always been under the |
18 |
impression that ATs are regarded highly enough that they could easily |
19 |
become members of the dev team. With that in mind, *if* we are going to |
20 |
give them nearly every privilege an arch dev has anyway, why not go one |
21 |
step further and just make them an official arch dev and avoid |
22 |
unnecessary bloating of categories with respect to Gentoo dev-team |
23 |
membership? They don't even need commit access if they don't want it. |
24 |
We currently have developers without tree access already in any case. |
25 |
Should we reclassify those folks as well? |
26 |
|
27 |
Besides, if you want to get technical, our entire userbase are arch |
28 |
testers to some extent. They run Gentoo, report bugs, unmask packages |
29 |
locally, submit keywording requests to bugzilla, etc. The good users |
30 |
make Gentoo a good distribution by providing feedback on bugzilla. The |
31 |
very best of these folks are typically tapped for membership in arch teams. |
32 |
|
33 |
-Steve |
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |