> > We know maintainers of the components which are leading to repeated > failures in that component and we just need to do the same thing we did to > remove commit access for the maintainer of the component instead of all of > the people. So in that sense it is not good faith and can be enforced. >
Pranith, I believe the difference of opinion is because you're looking at this problem in terms of "who" rather than "what". We do not care about *who* broke master. Removing commit access from a component owner doesn't stop someone else from landing a patch will create a failure in the same component or even a different component. We cannot stop patches from landing because it touches a specific component. And even if we could, our components are not entirely independent of each other. There could still be failures. This is a common scenario and it happened the last time we had to close master. Let me further re-emphasize our goals: * When master is broken, every team member's energy needs to be focused on getting master to green. Who broke the build isn't a concern as much as *the build is broken*. This is not a situation to punish specific people. * If we allow other commits to land, we run the risk of someone else breaking master with a different patch. Now we have two failures to debug and fix.
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
