Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: "Trusted contributor model"
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 15:17:49
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr8YnvvAT7HXf6bBwR7bMeQVyNMqicg-0uJ=FZtaFRC5vg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] RFC: "Trusted contributor model" by Joonas Niilola
1 On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 4:56 AM Joonas Niilola <juippis@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > Cross-posting to gentoo-dev and -project lists due to technical and
4 > non-technical nature. Reply-to is set to -project.
5 >
6 > Once again new council has been elected: congratulations to the chosen
7 > members! And once again many nominees expressed their wishes to see more
8 > non-developer contributors to become official developers. Yet, only very
9 > few people (if any) are interested in mentoring them. I get it, the
10 > relationship between a mentor and their mentee is very intimate, and
11 > mentoring takes a lot of time. While the Github PRs are helping us
12 > increase the user contributions merged, perhaps it's distancing us from
13 > creating stronger bonds with the contributors? But more about this topic
14 > later.
15 >
16 >
17 > 1st RFC: "Trusted contributor model"
18 >
19 > I'm proposing us to giving special commit access to our well-reputable
20 > contributors (mostly proxied maintainers). They'd have access _only_ to
21 > their maintained package in git-tree. To understand what I mean, check
22 > git shortlog -s -n net-im/telegram-desktop-bin/
23 > git shortlog -s -n net-im/signal-desktop-bin/
24 >
25 > There are few packages like these where I'd already trust the core
26 > proxied maintainer to commit at their will. It's as ajak said during the
27 > council election; _We_ are the bottleneck currently reviewing and
28 > _testing_ contributions, and with these two examples above, 99 % of time
29 > everything's in condition and we just need to merge. Obviously if these
30 > trusted contributors had to touch another package, or anything in
31 > profiles/ (just basically anything outside their dedicated package
32 > directory) they'd have to do a PR or .patch file to be merged by
33 > official developers. And they'd still need a proxy Gentoo
34 > developer/project listed in metadata, at least for now, to take
35 > responsibility.
36 >
37 > On the technical side I'm not sure how to achieve this, but I know it
38 > can be done. For example the sync-repos are compiled like this all the
39 > time. If this proposal gains support, I'm willing to start figuring it
40 > out more in-depth.
41
42 Who decides which contributor gets access to which package?
43 Is there a flow to eventually onboard contributors as developers?
44 Why are the contributors not developers themselves, just with scoped
45 ::gentoo access?
46
47 -A
48
49 >
50 > AFAIK Fedora and Arch have somewhat similar systems in place already.
51 >
52 >
53 > 2nd RFC: Recruiting proven contributors without a mentor
54 >
55 > I'm aware recruiters don't really need to ask a permission here, but I
56 > believe it's great to gauge the general feelings about this beforehand.
57 > What would you say if recruiters started more actively approaching
58 > potential developers? And currently I'm talking about people who have
59 > been active for a very long time (+year or two), who keep up with
60 > development-wise changes in Gentoo (eclasses, EAPI, virtuals...),
61 > participate in the community, and always provide top-quality
62 > contributions, but for some reason never got a mentor? I'd like to point
63 > out that this method would only be for the very few ones and recruiting
64 > through mentoring would still be the desired method. Recruiting through
65 > recruiters would still require the candidate to fill the
66 > ebuild/developer quiz, and they'd have to pass it without a mentor. So
67 > I'll emphasize: Currently only few special ones would qualify.
68 >
69 > But seeing the general lack of interest towards mentoring, maybe this is
70 > something we _need_ to do in near future.
71 >
72 > -- juippis