Hi Lars, Tuukka,
> I also would very much like you to stay here.
AFAIK, a main issue here not about of maintenance behaviour. A main
issue in the access right on the Qbs project. F.e. right now it is hard
to maintenance the CI integration with the GitHub, to generate the
pre-compiled releases and other stuff (maybe Ivan can explain a betetr).
Also, a main issue is for the CI for the bare-metal toolchains, where we
need to use the self-runners instead of Docker containers (there are
impossible to use the dockers).
So, if you want to be Qbs stayed in the QtCompany infrastructure, then
you need to help us a bit, e.g. provide some separate server resources
(e.g. two VMs with Linux && Windows OS installed) where we can setup all
required stuff to work with CI. ;)
Because right now I use own host PC as self-runner for CI, what is very
bad and non-stable approach. ;)
BR, Denis
15.09.2021 13:32, Lars Knoll пишет:
Hi Ivan,
I also would very much like you to stay here. QBS is great project and
something that came out of the Qt work and still has very strong ties
to it.
I am fully with Tuukka that what we want is to make it a good
experience and easy for people to work here in the project. Blocking
other peoples work is certainly not in line with this.
The governance model has the ’no confidence’ clause for a reason and
if you have tried other means before, I can and will of course arrange
such a vote.
Cheers,
Lars
On 15 Sep 2021, at 12:18, Tuukka Turunen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
I would not like Qbs development to move away from the Qt project. It
is very unfortunate that you have had bad experience and misbehavior
from one approver. We want to constantly improve the experience of
working within the Qt project and naturally this kind of incidents
are not doing that. Therefore, it is very good that you have raised
the topic in the mailing list, as many were not aware of it earlier.
On the positive side, I do not think there is any general hostility
towards Qbs within the Qt projects – on the contrary I can see a lot
of good co-operation.
Yours,
Tuukka
*From:*Development <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Иван
Комиссаров <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Date:*Tuesday, 14. September 2021 at 20.49
*To:*Lars Knoll <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:*Qt development mailing list <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [Development] Qbs development
Thanks for the response.
I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt
Governance Model by moving to GitHub. I have raised this topic on our
Discord server and the community overall seems positive - there were
several votes for the migration and no votes against. This migration
might be healthy to Qbs as a lot of newcomers are not familiar with
Gerrit but familiar with GitHub and it’s pull-request model.
Also, it will clearly separate who can approve/reject patches to Qbs
and to the rest of Qt world.
If there are no objections, I will create an INFRA issue about the
migration - it should not be very hard to do.
Ivan
14 сент. 2021 г., в 17:33, Lars Knoll <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> написал(а):
Hi,
Let’s also take up the formal part of the request.
On 13 Sep 2021, at 22:59, Иван Комиссаров <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Also, some actions might be taken to prevent from happening
in the future - if technically possible, I’d like to request
the revoke of his approver rights on the Qbs project as per
this part of the Qt Governance Model:
«In extreme circumstances Approver privileges can be revoked
by a vote of no confidence, proposed by an existing Approver
or Maintainer and arranged by the Chief Maintainer. Privilege
revocation requires a two-thirds majority vote of those
Approvers and Maintainers who express an opinion.» [3]
On 14 Sep 2021, at 12:34, Richard Weickelt
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The question is whether this is an abuse of approver rights.
This is a relevant question for the Qt project. Any person
with approver
rights has the ability to cause a production stop. Ivan is
asking for help
in this particular case and I am seconding his request.
Ivan and Richard, do I understand you correctly that you’d like
to have a formal vote of no confidence according to QUIP-2?
Please understand that this clause is meant as a last resort,
when other solutions have failed.
We will also need to consider that the Qt Governance Model only
defines global Approver rights for all of the Qt Project. The
request was however limited to QBS, so we would need to find a
way to handle this. I can only see two options there, either we
start extending our governance model here (can be done with a
lazy consensus on that extension), or change the scope to the
whole project having much more severe implications.
Ossi, I (and probably others on this mailing list) would also
like to hear your view on this. As I stated in my previous mail
in this thread, I strongly believe, that the people doing the
actual work decide on the direction and individual changes. The
Governance model states the same, the maintainer takes the
decision in case no agreement can be reached. As far as I can
see, your actions are conflicting with this.
Thank you,
Lars
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
