| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:00:57PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
> I maintain very few packages these days, so it was quite a surprise to |
| 3 |
> me today when I discovered that peer review is now effectively a part of |
| 4 |
> the x86 stabilization process. When I wrote GLEP 40, the problem that I |
| 5 |
> was trying to solve was that of devs stabling packages without ever |
| 6 |
> testing the package on an actual stable system (because most devs run |
| 7 |
> ~arch). As such, the language in GLEP 40 essentially suggests that devs |
| 8 |
> could still stable their own packages, but only if they were properly |
| 9 |
> testing the package on a stable system. That policy has evolved over |
| 10 |
> time to one where devs are actively discouraged from stabling their own |
| 11 |
> packages, thereby ensuring that at least one other person examines and |
| 12 |
> tests the ebuild before it becomes stable. (I'm still not quite sure of |
| 13 |
> the actual procedure, so I'm not sure how many people are generally |
| 14 |
> involved in this peer review process.) From a QA perspective, more eyes |
| 15 |
> can only be a good thing, and this idea has been tossed around |
| 16 |
> on-and-off for years. On the other hand, peer review could potentially |
| 17 |
> really slow things down, which is why we'd always rejected that approach |
| 18 |
> in the past. Are other arch's also requiring peer review? Do we have |
| 19 |
> any statistics or anecdotal evidence for what's improving, and whether |
| 20 |
> or not anything is getting worse as a result? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
The Alpha team does the exact same thing. Requiring devs to file stable |
| 23 |
bugs even if they can test on alpha hardware themselves or in some cases |
| 24 |
devs outside the team are allowed to keyword a few packages. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I've never put this into system the way the x86 team has, mostly because |
| 27 |
it's never been much of a problem with few devs having alpha hardware. |
| 28 |
It's more been a case of me (or other devs from the alpha team) randomly |
| 29 |
catching other devs in touching our keywords and asking them to abide by |
| 30 |
our keywording policy. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Also, looking at http://devmanual.gentoo.org/archs/index.html you see |
| 33 |
similar policies for almost all the archs described there. The big |
| 34 |
difference I think, being how big a hammer arch teams apply and how much |
| 35 |
attention they pay to the tree regarding their keywords. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Regards, |
| 38 |
Bryan Østergaard |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives