| 1 |
Hello folks, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I apologize to everyone for sending this proposal before it was |
| 4 |
finished. It was not voted on by the QA team hence it was not an |
| 5 |
official proposal by the QA team. There was probably some |
| 6 |
misunderstanding in communication. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
After we finish the official draft and it is accepted by QA team |
| 9 |
members, we will be very happy to accept comments on the mailing list in |
| 10 |
the future. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Thank you for understanding |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
On behalf of QA team, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Amy Liffey |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On 07/30/2018 10:03 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 19 |
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:52 AM Guilherme Amadio <amadio@g.o |
| 20 |
> <mailto:amadio@g.o>> wrote: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> If you introduce penalties for breaking prefix as well, I'm afraid many |
| 23 |
> people will be unnecessarily penalized. I think that such penalties are |
| 24 |
> counter productive in most cases. If someone is really being careless it |
| 25 |
> might make sense to get some warning and lose commit access temporarily. |
| 26 |
> If someone made a simple mistake that can be easily fixed, like version |
| 27 |
> bumping a package that starts to fail in some corner case, then |
| 28 |
> punishment doesn't make much sense. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> The proposed policy already mentions that people will only be punished |
| 32 |
> after two warnings. This seems enough for me -- if people keep breaking |
| 33 |
> stuff despite warnings, a little penalty is probably a good thing. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> The proposed policy already goes out of its way to require two warnings |
| 36 |
> for "independent" breakage, but it's not entirely clear what independent |
| 37 |
> means here. If you commit three breakages that are technically unrelated |
| 38 |
> on the same day, then you probably shouldn't be banned immediately. So I |
| 39 |
> would suggest also making clear that the warnings should be sent at |
| 40 |
> least a few days apart and that an initial penalty cannot happen until a |
| 41 |
> few days apart the second warning. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> That said, I agree with those who are saying that breaking things should |
| 44 |
> be obvious, things like ignoring repoman and/or other CI messaging. If |
| 45 |
> the breakage is non-obvious and hard to spot locally, then we should |
| 46 |
> instead invest in tooling to make it more obvious. By "ignoring" here I |
| 47 |
> do mean that there needs to be a reasonable timeout -- sometimes if I |
| 48 |
> commit a change and get a CI alert after a few hours, it might be tricky |
| 49 |
> due to work/family/whatever concerns to fix it within, say, 24 hours. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Regards, |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Dirkjan |
Archives