1 |
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:42:19 -0500 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> 1. It makes sense that in the event that a "Rogue" developer is |
5 |
> wreaking havoc on the tree that QA can get infra to suspend their |
6 |
> commit rights. That's safeguarding the tree in the face of imminent |
7 |
> harm. This should generally be limited to serious issues (people |
8 |
> running scripts to mass-update packages, bad changes to system |
9 |
> packages, etc), and not because there is some dispute over whether |
10 |
> some obscure package should or should-not be masked. |
11 |
|
12 |
No, it makes no sense at all. /Anyone/ can ask infra to do that, users |
13 |
as well as developers, and infra will then probably want to see some |
14 |
details of commits or other evidence to support the suspension. |
15 |
|
16 |
You simply file a bug report, make sure devrel and infra know about it, |
17 |
and just make a lot of noise until stuff gets fixed - if it's all that |
18 |
bad. We've never needed QA to do it for us before, have we? |
19 |
|
20 |
> 2. I don't think it makes sense for QA to discipline developers |
21 |
> permanently in these cases. They should suspend access pending Devrel |
22 |
> resolution of the issue. Devrel should of course strongly consider |
23 |
> the input of QA. |
24 |
|
25 |
That should be anyone's input, really. If a Gentoo Linux user finds a |
26 |
nasty `rm -rf /' timebomb, I suppose he could point that out to infra |
27 |
directly. And it's infra that suspends access, by the way. And devrel |
28 |
should be the intermediate between developers. And QA "aims to keep the |
29 |
portage tree in a consistent state"[1]. Wait, everyone is already in |
30 |
place? |
31 |
|
32 |
What makes QA so special? If we grant them this new power, then that is |
33 |
what makes them special, I guess. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
jer |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/ |