Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-11-13

[Ian Stakenvicius]

On 03/11/16 01:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
>>
>> Yep pretty much.  The different in my suggestion would be that
>> stabilization commits would be done by those that don't actually test
>> said arch -- I think the way it worked before is that the
>> stabilization commit was still done by an AT.
>
> ATs aren't developers, so they can't do commits.  The commits were
> done by developers who were part of the arch project.
>
> Unless you're using "AT" to refer to either a non-dev arch tester or a
> developer member of the arch project team.  It is possible that the
> term wasn't used consistently, but on amd64 back when it was active I
> don't think we used the term AT for anything other than non-devs.
>

Ahhh, I wasn't aware of that.  I thought the AT (Arch Tester) label
included both the dev and the non-dev members of the arch team.


>> This lack of on-system
>> verification from the committing dev would be why we'd need a higher
>> level of trust from the non-dev ATs.
>
> Generally speaking the arch project member wasn't checking anything
> other than that the AT was in fact an AT for their arch.  So, it
> required the same level of trust.
>
> However, you're right that the commits could be done by anybody, or as
> I suggested they might even be automated.  Arch testing really seems
> to be the sort of thing that could go into some kind of tool that
> tracks all the statuses/etc and as testers check in it just does the
> commit behind the scenes.
>

Yes, I never even considered automation in this case.  That could aid
things significantly.