Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: [QA] Ban policy introduction
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 09:18:01
Message-Id: 20180729121749.b08b3d4e767c8272b9a87e8f@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: [QA] Ban policy introduction by Alice Ferrazzi
1 On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:47:47 +0900 Alice Ferrazzi wrote:
2 > Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
3 >
4 > On Sun, 29 Jul 2018, 16:39 Fabian Groffen, <grobian@g.o> wrote:
5 >
6 > > Completely agreeing with Sergei, with some additional suggestions:
7 > >
8 > > On 28-07-2018 23:14:12 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
9 > > > On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 00:40:18 +0300
10 > > > Mikle Kolyada <zlogene@g.o> wrote:
11 > > >
12 > > > > Hello,
13 > > > >
14 > > > > The Gentoo QA team would like to introduce the following policy that
15 > > > > would be applied to individuals breaking the state and quality of the
16 > > > > main gentoo.git tree
17 > > > >
18 > > > > ( as we do not have this strictly documented yet):
19 > > > >
20 > > > > <policy>
21 > > > >
22 > > > > If recommended
23 > > >
24 > > > It's not called "recommended" but "enforced".
25 > >
26 > > I agree. If you put penalties on these, they become hard rules. I
27 > > think that change should be discussed by the council perhaps?
28
29 +1. Also please provide some tool for developers to check for
30 compliance to these rules, e.g. repoman full must perform all these
31 checks.
32
33 If developers have no way to verify correctness of the code, they
34 can't be held responsible for accidental violation of the rules.
35
36 > > > > the standard QA
37 > > > > procedure is:
38 > > > >
39 > > > > 1.) Two warnings granted by QA team, after two independent breakages
40 > > > > 2.) Revoking the commit access for 14 days
41 > > > >
42 > > > > These violations will be evaluated individually by all QA team members.
43 > > > > Warnings can be revoked, if during 6 months period a developer makes at
44 > > > > least 20 non trivial changes not producing more breakages.
45
46 Why 6 months period? Why time frame at all? 20 good commits sounds
47 OK. If you want time frame, then you should set autoexpire of
48 warning as well.
49
50 What is the definition of non-trivial change? There will be commits
51 which may be seen as trivial by one person (e.g. because it is
52 one-liner) and as non-trivial by another (e.g. because such commit
53 fixes serious bug).
54
55 > if you want to enforce rules, would be productive to also have extensive
56 > documentation on how to avoid to make such problems.
57 > Better would be to invest more time in something like the breckage checker
58 > script, similar at what mgorny is doing, than adding more ways to block
59 > developers contributions.
60 >
61 > thanks,
62 > Alice
63
64 Best regards,
65 Andrew Savchenko

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: [QA] Ban policy introduction Gordon Pettey <petteyg359@×××××.com>