Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:26:13
Message-Id: 20140121172601.GA1624@laptop.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights by Rich Freeman
1 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:47:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > If Comrel really objects to this I'm not entirely opposed to letting
3 > QA have the reins (certainly we can't just let policy go unenforced
4 > entirely). However, I would encourage the teams to give some thought
5 > as to whether it makes sense to work together to separate the human vs
6 > technical factors here.
8 Well, I guess that's the big question isn't it -- what is personal vs
9 technical?
11 I think we can all agree that if qa changes an ebuild and a dev comes back
12 with "You stupid *** leave my *** ebuild alone." and reverts qa's
13 change, that is personal and goes straight to Comrel because it is now a
14 CoC violation as well.
16 What about the scenario where qa makes a change, then the dev, in a
17 civil manor, explains to qa why he prefers his original method and
18 reverts QA's change without the agreement of QA and without presenting
19 his case to the council? Now you have another qa violation since GLEP
20 48 states that QA's changes must stand until the council says otherwise.
21 However, assuming the exchanges between qa and the dev are still
22 respectful, I'm not sure there is a personal issue.
24 wrt the commit rights issue: QA is asking for the ability to *suspend*
25 not *revoke* commit rights. This was explained well by Tom; it is a
26 temporary measure to get a dev's attention if nothing else works.
28 I agree that it is strong. However, if qa gets out of hand with it,
29 the council can always step in and take care of the matter.
31 Thoughts?
33 William


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature