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

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
>
> The stabilization commit itself isn't that onerous, it's the testing.  Likely a keyword or whiteboard from the non-dev AT on the stabilization bug would suffice no?
>
> That said, like the proxy-maint group, we could enlist some random devs to apply the stabilization commits based on the feedback of non-dev ATs.  BUT, that's only going to work if we have some sort of enforced training and  qualification criteria for non-dev ATs (which we likely have already) and I'm not sure the bureaucracy to manage that would leave us in a better situation than what we have now.
>

You're basically describing how ATs worked back when they were active.

An AT would search for packages keyworded for testing/stable on their
arch.  They would perform testing, and comment on the results.  If it
passed they'd add a keyword.

Devs on the arch team would search for packages keyworded by ATs on
their arch.  For the most part they'd just blindly commit anything
that was marked, because only trained ATs would be adding the
keywords.

When I was an AT it usually didn't take more than a few hours for
anything I keyworded to get marked stable.  The queue of stuff waiting
for a dev was always fairly small, because the process for the dev was
fairly mechanical.  Ideally it would just be automated somehow if the
process took off (the only reason you need a dev is that there is no
way to grant access to commit only keyword changes in git).

ATs took the ebuild quiz I believe at the time.  It didn't touch
recruiters or anything like that, it is purely administered by the
arch team.

-- 
Rich