On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:42:19 -0500
Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> 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 limited to serious issues (people
> running scripts to mass-update packages, bad changes to system
> packages, etc), and not because there is some dispute over whether
> some obscure package should or should-not be masked.
No, it makes no sense at all. /Anyone/ can ask infra to do that, users
as well as developers, and infra will then probably want to see some
details of commits or other evidence to support the suspension.
You simply file a bug report, make sure devrel and infra know about it,
and just make a lot of noise until stuff gets fixed - if it's all that
bad. We've never needed QA to do it for us before, have we?
> 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 be anyone's input, really. If a Gentoo Linux user finds a
nasty `rm -rf /' timebomb, I suppose he could point that out to infra
directly. And it's infra that suspends access, by the way. And devrel
should be the intermediate between developers. And QA "aims to keep the
portage tree in a consistent state"[1]. Wait, everyone is already in
place?
What makes QA so special? If we grant them this new power, then that is
what makes them special, I guess.
jer
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/
