On 09:06 Mon 31 Jan , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 30-01-2011 20:31:24 -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 22:11 Fri 28 Jan , Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > > So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
> > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
> > >
> > >
After thinking about this, I think it is ok for QA team to revoke
privileges for a specific developer. However, devrel must be
responsible for making this decision permanent or give the developer
another chance or whatever. As many of you have already said, it is
devreal who deals with humans not Q
I'm going to basically reply with my normal QA rant.
1) QA is important to the overall health of Gentoo. People will not
use broken shit.
2) QA should be straightforward. If a developer need to do X to
assure quality it should be fairly obvious why X is required. It
should be clear where to go
On 01/31/2011 07:04 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
>> 2. I don't think it makes sense for QA to discipline developers
>> permanently in these cases. They should suspend access pending Devrel
>> resolution of the issue. Devrel should of course strongly consider
>> the input of QA.
>
> That should
On 30-01-2011 20:31:24 -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 22:11 Fri 28 Jan , Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
> >
> > Please comment and help us improve the "english" of the whol
On 30-01-2011 21:00:24 -0500, Dane Smith wrote:
> > Again, I strongly object to this plan. Instead:
> >
> > To become a QA member, one must be a current developer, for at least 6
> > months, and one must go through a quiz. The quiz is then evaluated by
> > the QA lead or a replacing member from
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:42:19 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> 1. It makes sense that in the event that a "Rogue" developer is
> wreaking havoc on the tree that QA can get infra to suspend their
> commit rights. That's safeguarding the tree in the face of imminent
> harm. This should generally be li
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:39:15 -0600
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> We're here to create an awesome source-based distribution, not
> pretend we're United Nations and the U.S. government all rolled into
> one. =)
I've been observing for a few years now how sometimes a developer leans
toward a more corpor
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:00:24 -0500
Dane Smith wrote:
> I whole-heartedly disagree with this. First off, the "line in the
> sand" concept is completely unnecessary in this case. It barely makes
> sense when it's used on a massive scale (can't drink until 21 in the
> US), and it only makes sense th
On 14:07 Sat 29 Jan , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Since QA is getting lots of powers these days, I strongly object to
> this, see also my comment on becoming a QA member. I suggest the
> following:
>
> The QA lead is yearly elected by the whole dev-community (active
> developers), same procedu
On 22:11 Fri 28 Jan , Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
> first off i would like to apologize for not sending this mail sooner
> (helluva week).
>
> So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~sc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2011 08:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 28-01-2011 22:11:30 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
>>
>> Please comment and he
On 1/28/11 10:11 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
I'd suggest to split the diff, discussion and voting to make it more
focused:
1) QA team lead, deputy, and accepting new members of
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 28-01-2011 22:11:30 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
>>
>> Please comment and help us improve the "english" of the wh
On 01/29/2011 12:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Finally, if Devrel, QA, and the Council have already talked this out
> and agree that QA is in the best place to police technical commit
> issues, then pipe this email to /dev/null...
>
The diff proposed in this thread has not yet been talked abou
On 28-01-2011 22:11:30 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
>
> Please comment and help us improve the "english" of the whole document
> so it gets accepted :)
(:Nread http://dev.gen
On 2011.01.29 05:20, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
[snip] ...
> and that whoever feels to be in place to
> deal out QA (and I think this has gone wrong a few times recently) is
> required to:
>
> 1) state and/or explain policy specifically where it is being not
> adhered to;
> 2) offer alternatives where
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:05:48 +
Roy Bamford wrote:
> Its not QAs decision, if the breakage was intentional or not. A
> single body, in this case, QA, cannot be both the police and the
> judicary.
>
> QA can and should be capable of finding wrongs, preventing further
> damage and causing the
On 2011.01.28 23:03, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
[snip]
> Only case where we don't want Devrel interfere with QA decision at
> all
> is when someone Intentionaly breaks main tree. Seriously if someone
> really hit this issue i don't actually want him to apologize to
> another
> team and pretend like it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 28.1.2011 23:42, Rich Freeman napsal(a):
> 2011/1/28 Tomáš Chvátal :
>> So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
>>
>> Please comment and help us improve the "english
2011/1/28 Tomáš Chvátal :
> So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
>
> Please comment and help us improve the "english" of the whole document
> so it gets accepted :)
My only general comments are:
1. It makes sens
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
first off i would like to apologize for not sending this mail sooner
(helluva week).
So draft we would like to have implemented as Glep update is this diff:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/glep-0048.diff
Please comment and help us improve the "e
22 matches
Mail list logo
