| 1 |
El jue, 03-11-2016 a las 09:50 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
> The stabilization commit itself isn't that onerous, it's the |
| 5 |
> testing. Likely a keyword or whiteboard from the non-dev AT on the |
| 6 |
> stabilization bug would suffice no? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That said, like the proxy-maint group, we could enlist some random |
| 9 |
> devs to apply the stabilization commits based on the feedback of non- |
| 10 |
> dev ATs. BUT, that's only going to work if we have some sort of |
| 11 |
> enforced training and qualification criteria for non-dev ATs (which |
| 12 |
> we likely have already) and I'm not sure the bureaucracy to manage |
| 13 |
> that would leave us in a better situation than what we have now. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yeah, I was thinking on enforcing current (and new) arch testers, that |
| 17 |
already look to have a "special status" in bugzilla. At least, if I |
| 18 |
don't misremember, some of them are shown as "arch testers" with an |
| 19 |
icon in bugs... hence, I guess we have a official list of "trained |
| 20 |
ATs". The only difference over they currently adding only a comment in |
| 21 |
bug reports about "it's ready" they could also send a PR that could be |
| 22 |
merged by any of us |
Archives