| 1 |
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 18:38:51 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> After some initial discussion on the GURU user repository, I'd like to |
| 5 |
> start bike... I mean, brainstorming v2 of the idea. This time it's more |
| 6 |
> like Sunrise but with some automation in mind. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Let's go with two layers like Sunrise -- one private working branch, |
| 9 |
> and another public that's exposed to users. Commits are merged from |
| 10 |
> private to public after some kind of review. I suppose to avoid |
| 11 |
> depgraph misshots etc. we'd want to move commits incrementally, i.e. |
| 12 |
> public is only doing fast-forward merges from dev. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Now, reviews are normally done on commit ranges; by default, from |
| 15 |
> current state of public to current state of dev. When such a range is |
| 16 |
> reviewed, every commit belonging to it gains reputation. When a range |
| 17 |
> of commits gets reputation of 3, it is merged to public. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Reviews can be done by devs or privileges users. Review by dev gives 3 |
| 20 |
> rep points, and by privileged user gives 1 rep point. Therefore, |
| 21 |
> a commit is merged if it's either reviewed by dev or 3 privileged users. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Users gain reviewing privilege also via reputation points. If a commit |
| 25 |
> range including user's commit gets merged to master, user gets 1 rep |
| 26 |
> point (independently of number of commits in the range). When user gets |
| 27 |
> 5 rep points, he can start reviewing stuff. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Finally, besides positive approval we have option of flagging. You can |
| 30 |
> flag commits, e.g. for malicious code, vandalism, etc. If a commit is |
| 31 |
> flagged, merging it is blocked until a dev resolves the flag. |
| 32 |
> Furthermore, devs can issue bans to users responsible for the bad stuff. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> That's my idea, roughly. The main points are: |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> - stuff is reviewed before publishing to users, |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> - people are encouraged to review stuff, as previous unreviewed commits |
| 39 |
> are going to block their own, |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> - initially reviews are done by devs but as users gain reputation, they |
| 42 |
> start being able to review ebuilds committed by others, |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> - flagging gives extra protection against mistakes. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Your updated thoughts? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
How is it different from the sunrise overlay? We had very similar |
| 49 |
unreviewed/reviewed split model there. And you buried that project |
| 50 |
yourself ~2.5 years ago because it was stinking already. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Furthermore such project will distort already thin resources from |
| 53 |
proxy maint and GH PR reviewers. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
So I see no practical point in resurrecting sunrise under another |
| 56 |
name and a slightly different policy. So please NO. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Best regards, |
| 59 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives