1 |
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:52 AM Guilherme Amadio <amadio@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> If you introduce penalties for breaking prefix as well, I'm afraid many |
4 |
> people will be unnecessarily penalized. I think that such penalties are |
5 |
> counter productive in most cases. If someone is really being careless it |
6 |
> might make sense to get some warning and lose commit access temporarily. |
7 |
> If someone made a simple mistake that can be easily fixed, like version |
8 |
> bumping a package that starts to fail in some corner case, then |
9 |
> punishment doesn't make much sense. |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
The proposed policy already mentions that people will only be punished |
13 |
after two warnings. This seems enough for me -- if people keep breaking |
14 |
stuff despite warnings, a little penalty is probably a good thing. |
15 |
|
16 |
The proposed policy already goes out of its way to require two warnings for |
17 |
"independent" breakage, but it's not entirely clear what independent means |
18 |
here. If you commit three breakages that are technically unrelated on the |
19 |
same day, then you probably shouldn't be banned immediately. So I would |
20 |
suggest also making clear that the warnings should be sent at least a few |
21 |
days apart and that an initial penalty cannot happen until a few days apart |
22 |
the second warning. |
23 |
|
24 |
That said, I agree with those who are saying that breaking things should be |
25 |
obvious, things like ignoring repoman and/or other CI messaging. If the |
26 |
breakage is non-obvious and hard to spot locally, then we should instead |
27 |
invest in tooling to make it more obvious. By "ignoring" here I do mean |
28 |
that there needs to be a reasonable timeout -- sometimes if I commit a |
29 |
change and get a CI alert after a few hours, it might be tricky due to |
30 |
work/family/whatever concerns to fix it within, say, 24 hours. |
31 |
|
32 |
Regards, |
33 |
|
34 |
Dirkjan |