| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 07:40:03PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 21 June 2013 14:50:54 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > From what I've read on the list recently, there's a lot of demand for |
| 4 |
> > non-maintainer updates to ebuilds. Esp. with the upcoming Git migration, |
| 5 |
> > I predict there will be a much larger influx of changes from users. |
| 6 |
> seems like we're somewhat approaching it the wrong way around. |
| 7 |
[Snip giant suggestions re gerrit/review-systems] |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm not going into review systems here at all, I'm simply trying to have |
| 10 |
a policy of what changes are welcomed/blocked WITHOUT interaction from |
| 11 |
the listed maintainer(s) of a given package/herd. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If they have to ask me to review a trivial patch, I've already failed |
| 14 |
them. I don't want ANY gatekeeping, I want them to go and commit it |
| 15 |
already. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Then extending THAT to Gerrit, who is responsible/allowed to hit that |
| 18 |
web interface submit button? I don't want it to have to be me either for |
| 19 |
most of my packages. If some developer reviews a trivial change (either |
| 20 |
by another dev or a user) and thinks it's ok, then it should probably go |
| 21 |
in the tree. Why does it need to involve me at all, other than I'm the |
| 22 |
listed maintainer for the package. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If it's some major patch or a big feature addition, then it probably |
| 25 |
needs more serious eyeballs (eg complex patches to qmail [very fragile], |
| 26 |
unix socket patch to openssh [rejected upstream]). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think both NMU & Gerrit need to happen (as well as 'git pull' of |
| 29 |
changes from users). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead |
| 34 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 35 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
Archives