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 |