| 1 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti: |
| 3 |
>> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're |
| 7 |
>> forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that |
| 8 |
>> we have many different roles. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And you are assuming that undertakers wouldn't check their role before |
| 12 |
> acting. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I read it as a rule to drop developers. If we're only talking about it |
| 16 |
raising a warning to undertakers so they can check the dev status, then |
| 17 |
I don't have a problem with the proposal. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the |
| 20 |
>> existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA |
| 21 |
>> members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their |
| 22 |
>> "privileges"? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> AT folks aren't devs and see above. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
To be clear, I didn't meant arch testers but people that do keywords for |
| 28 |
arch teams. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>> Finally, I thought the whole point of removing access to infra boxes |
| 31 |
>> (which is the end result of retiring a dev), was a concern with |
| 32 |
>> security and not a way to get rid of people - with the exception of |
| 33 |
>> administrative action by devrel. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Security and gives us a better picture on what is really maintained and |
| 36 |
> what is not. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
But in that case I don't think that the level of commits is the best |
| 40 |
indicator if someone is maintaining properly a package or not. The |
| 41 |
number of open bugs and the mean time that it takes for the developer to |
| 42 |
react to a bug might give us a better picture. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate |
| 46 |
>> about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. |
| 47 |
>> Afterall, if gentoo-x86 was a git tree and or we had acls in the tree, |
| 48 |
>> I don't think we would be having or would need to have this argument. |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where |
| 54 |
people worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't |
| 55 |
pose so many security risks. With the current practice of doing work in |
| 56 |
overlays it would also be simpler to merge the work back into the |
| 57 |
Portage tree. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> Regards, |
| 61 |
> Petteri |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Regards, |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 68 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE |
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives