| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 01/19/2014 10:15 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Attached you will find an updated version of this patch taking |
| 8 |
>> into account the current version of glep 48. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> This is nothing new; the qa team has requested that commit |
| 11 |
>> rights be suspended before. I am just proposing that we actually |
| 12 |
>> add the parts of the old patch to the glep that spell out when |
| 13 |
>> and how this can happen. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Thoughts? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I think that the current version is just fine. QA should take care |
| 18 |
> of the tree, and any developer issues should be handled by Comrel. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Ulrich |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
I am not sure I interpret the GLEP in the same way as you do. The glep |
| 25 |
clearly states if the developer keep breaking the tree, the QA should |
| 26 |
refer him to Devrel (now comrel). This somehow puts QA under Comrel |
| 27 |
which is not exactly ideal. You ask a non-technical group to comment |
| 28 |
on someone's ability and technical skills to be a developer. This is |
| 29 |
not our field of expertise. |
| 30 |
If QA refers someone to us, then QA clearly thinks the developer can't |
| 31 |
make proper contributions to the portage tree and it's the QA team who |
| 32 |
should decide what happens. Why do you think Comrel is more suitable |
| 33 |
for the role? We only deal with inter-developer and dev-user |
| 34 |
non-technical conflicts. We only had to get involved in technical |
| 35 |
conflicts in the past few months because QA was not present. This |
| 36 |
should never happen again. |
| 37 |
The council has made a lengthy discussion here |
| 38 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110308.txt |
| 39 |
[around 21:56:16] |
| 40 |
Anyway, my opinion is that using Comrel to suspend people can only |
| 41 |
work if: |
| 42 |
- - Comrel trustes QA 100%. So if QA says "please revoke foobar's commit |
| 43 |
access, Comrel does it without *any further* discussion. Which raises |
| 44 |
the question why not give the QA lead the power to do that himself... |
| 45 |
- - There is a direct developer conflict between the said developer and |
| 46 |
the QA team which naturally is something we handle. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
- -- |
| 49 |
Regards, |
| 50 |
Markos Chandras |
| 51 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 52 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJS3jFQXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w |
| 55 |
ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQzNTVDNDczOUYzRjJEMTRGNDRGMzU2RkMw |
| 56 |
OUJGNEY1NEMyQkE3RjNDAAoJEAm/T1TCun88OKwP/0MdKA8jEnHHQVCnrKOPUXGg |
| 57 |
QG7soDOiznTN0UgKYDD2HKjSt2zU3zae0RM47USkkZSXzISUyp6U6PphQkNoMTjq |
| 58 |
F6eRc6oef17CoKcXCmDnJwB4QV8wuh93dmasIwocamTkSpbg5zA/iqmG+DJtjXDD |
| 59 |
vCVq6CcUf89O0koowLX+zmpHzDDrgdFpqjjMViCUhUOaN3Ymm0Ofd/u40m04jTEl |
| 60 |
2ECi/DE/E/dFSWA7Yv8sAdof5rxFou+KFNtxn3OI5Oj0Zbu3AKCssmvm+WbJYwKE |
| 61 |
aIWPRmciAAOc5KwbqWvw/9yeC1mvQ11awu4E/7Uv6nssNNBzEd++4k8CrLlBFYd7 |
| 62 |
OEjVaMprGd1Vea2sMuVrvKTXqZpbE92U33xxrMPNoPYKQNUndob9wUjUcgsBh8HQ |
| 63 |
UuPC+34B1uvLStB/deHXKZMuxs0Gz3bzGhLtJ+OwjdGQSpovOEK1EbiaAwPTjm3p |
| 64 |
BpsZMOCvgJ4yUNl0H5d2+mdAlGlJr66mk3CeHONMVDmq22wSJYM+GQ4aV+WQeJOc |
| 65 |
lxbFCFVmAqmmYH3qD9p9EeWfmFd0VS4Sn54gTXjPX4htiT6St7IdYKe0qSHRoZ8q |
| 66 |
tES7xAMK3b2Un0gzkONMmht+ItGt5OH2HMEd8Y/DNidMw8YSNUQn/7nXPsQRtlvm |
| 67 |
6pZnZOYirnS8D7K8t3nQ |
| 68 |
=eQLs |
| 69 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives