| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| I'm not confusing anything here. Arch Devs ( ala members of arch |
| 4 |
| teams ) and Arch testers should be equal in terms of developer |
| 5 |
| status. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Why? Arch testers *aren't* full developers. They may become them, but |
| 8 |
they haven't yet demonstrated that they're capable of being a full |
| 9 |
developer. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
| voting previleges |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of |
| 14 |
complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who |
| 15 |
know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
| > Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then: |
| 18 |
| > |
| 19 |
| > Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment |
| 20 |
| > standards. |
| 21 |
| |
| 22 |
| Commitment first: |
| 23 |
| IMNSHO, it is rude to assume that an Arch Tester is less commited to |
| 24 |
| their work than an Arch Team member. All developers should be doing |
| 25 |
| their part and should hopefully ( we don't live in an ideal world here |
| 26 |
| after all ) be commited to doing their work well. A lack of |
| 27 |
| commitment that results in shoddy work should get them removed from |
| 28 |
| any developer role, Arch Team member or otherwise. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same |
| 31 |
length of time as a full developer. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
| Being a Gentoo developer isn't ( or I should say, shouldn't be ) all |
| 34 |
| about what happens in CVS. There are many people who support other |
| 35 |
| portions of gentoo forums/bugs/devrel/testing/user |
| 36 |
| relations/gentooexperimental.org/etc and some sort of stupid elitism |
| 37 |
| about being a "better dev" or a dev that has "better skillz" because |
| 38 |
| said dev has commit access is simply stupid. Devs with commit access |
| 39 |
| may be skilled in the workings of the tree ( and there are certainly |
| 40 |
| devs with commit access that do not possess such a skillset ), but |
| 41 |
| that should be why they have commit access, because they possess the |
| 42 |
| skills to manage the tree. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is |
| 45 |
down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch testers |
| 46 |
have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at least in |
| 47 |
theory...). |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
| Personally I would rather see people's CVS commit access by |
| 50 |
| herd/package/section than just "generic tree access". Commiting |
| 51 |
| something outside your Role becomes then contacting someone who knows |
| 52 |
| what they are doing and who can look over your work (good!). The bad |
| 53 |
| part being when no one is around who has commit access. A resolution |
| 54 |
| for this situation would need to be required. Expections would need |
| 55 |
| to occur as well ( tree-wide commits, and other things that happen |
| 56 |
| from time to time ). However I'd like to see more input on things |
| 57 |
| like this ( along with say, council approval? :) ). |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Take a look at the branches proposal that's been floating around. It's |
| 60 |
basically what you suggested with fewer holes and a more realistic view |
| 61 |
of how development gets done. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 65 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 66 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives