| 1 |
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018, 16:39 Fabian Groffen, <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Completely agreeing with Sergei, with some additional suggestions: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 28-07-2018 23:14:12 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
| 8 |
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 00:40:18 +0300 |
| 9 |
> > Mikle Kolyada <zlogene@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > > Hello, |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > The Gentoo QA team would like to introduce the following policy that |
| 14 |
> > > would be applied to individuals breaking the state and quality of the |
| 15 |
> > > main gentoo.git tree |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > ( as we do not have this strictly documented yet): |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > <policy> |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > If recommended |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > It's not called "recommended" but "enforced". |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I agree. If you put penalties on these, they become hard rules. I |
| 26 |
> think that change should be discussed by the council perhaps? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > > Gentoo workflow policies are not followed by an |
| 29 |
> > > individual developer |
| 30 |
> > > (e.g make major changes to the widely used eclasses without prior |
| 31 |
> > > discussion on the mailing list or |
| 32 |
> > > commit changes that lead to multiple CI checks failure) |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > Here should go exhaustive list of links to the policies to be enforced. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> At least. And they should be clear and concise. No "common sense" or |
| 37 |
> anything involved for exceptions and the like. In addition, new checks |
| 38 |
> should be introduced to the community and possibly approved by council |
| 39 |
> as to whether being enforced or not. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Fabian |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> > |
| 44 |
> > > the standard QA |
| 45 |
> > > procedure is: |
| 46 |
> > > |
| 47 |
> > > 1.) Two warnings granted by QA team, after two independent breakages |
| 48 |
> > > 2.) Revoking the commit access for 14 days |
| 49 |
> > > |
| 50 |
> > > These violations will be evaluated individually by all QA team members. |
| 51 |
> > > Warnings can be revoked, if during 6 months period a developer makes at |
| 52 |
> > > least 20 non trivial changes not producing more breakages. |
| 53 |
> > > |
| 54 |
> > > </policy> |
| 55 |
> > |
| 56 |
> > -- |
| 57 |
> > |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
if you want to enforce rules, would be productive to also have extensive |
| 60 |
documentation on how to avoid to make such problems. |
| 61 |
Better would be to invest more time in something like the breckage checker |
| 62 |
script, similar at what mgorny is doing, than adding more ways to block |
| 63 |
developers contributions. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
thanks, |
| 66 |
Alice |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
> |
Archives