| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:53 AM Joonas Niilola <juippis@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 22.7.2022 18.17, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Who decides which contributor gets access to which package? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I imagine the person / project who has been proxying them until that |
| 8 |
> point. Even if the contributor gets a special access to a single |
| 9 |
> package, you'd still have a @gentoo.org maintainer proxying - if there's |
| 10 |
> an increasing amount of bug reports and poor work after commit access is |
| 11 |
> given, this proxy sees it and can request removal of access and start |
| 12 |
> teaching the contributor through reviews again. I'm aware there could be |
| 13 |
> some lazy people requesting it immediately, but let's think of the |
| 14 |
> positives and not paint it black quite yet. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I suspect this will end up being a process constraint, not a technical one. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
E.g. technically any dev can grant any contributor access to any |
| 19 |
package (because managing thousands of fine-grained ACLs seems no |
| 20 |
bueno to me.) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is fine (the same is true for anything else a developer does in ::gentoo.) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> > Is there a flow to eventually onboard contributors as developers? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> It'd help combined with my 2nd RFC of the original post, yes. But I |
| 29 |
> believe some contributors would be fine with this arrangement too, where |
| 30 |
> they get to keep package(s) of their interest in a good condition |
| 31 |
> without having to tackle the quiz. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Anyway I only see positives for someone on the road of becoming a |
| 34 |
> developer with this approach. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> > Why are the contributors not developers themselves, just with scoped |
| 38 |
> > ::gentoo access? |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Remind me again, didn't we do this with arch testers historically? And |
| 42 |
> how did that work out? (This isn't a negative tone, genuinely asking |
| 43 |
> YOUR perspective) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
So to clarify: |
| 46 |
- We would like to make these people developers. |
| 47 |
- Some don't want to be developers for various reasons (the quiz |
| 48 |
being one, but there are others.) |
| 49 |
- This is then us creating a way for those interested people to |
| 50 |
contribute in a streamlined fashion. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> I wouldn't mind this at all, but in a way I guess we'll want to identify |
| 54 |
> people who a) have passed the quiz & interview, b) has full tree access. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> -- juippis |
| 57 |
> |
Archives