On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:42:14 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> So, this was what I was trying to get at in my email. I see a couple
> of different models being thrown around and they really differ on the
> guidelines as to how QA would apply the power to suspend devs.
Looking at the rest of your mail
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 02:58:45 -0800
Alec Warner wrote:
> Of course it is. We want to send the message that if a person's
> contributions are not up to par, their access to commit to the
> project will be revoked, until they can prove that they can
> contribute at a level that is not detrimental to
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:00:14 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I
> see is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
Can you avoid top posting? Had to scroll down to see who you reply to.
> People are not machines. Volunte
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:54:00 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:22:23 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > And the biggest "flamewar" so far was about cosmetic issues.
> > Y'know, if I get around to it I'll try to work towards making most
> > of these warnings fatal, then you can'
Am Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2014, 18:54:00 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:22:23 +0800
>
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > And the biggest "flamewar" so far was about cosmetic issues.
> > Y'know, if I get around to it I'll try to work towards making most of
> > these warnings fatal, then y
On 01/22/14 14:34, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Do you realise the message that is sent by denying someone access? You
>> > are saying that person is not good enough to work on Gentoo. Do you
>> > really want to send that message?
> Yes. And I have no problem being the Evil Guy who pulls the trigger,
>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 01/22/2014 03:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
>> is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
>>
>> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:22:23 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> And the biggest "flamewar" so far was about cosmetic issues.
> Y'know, if I get around to it I'll try to work towards making most of
> these warnings fatal, then you can't accidentally add such things.
> (And people not using repoman will h
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:22:07 -0700
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> Yes, thoughts, absolutely. Asking for QA to be at the same time judge,
> party and executioner. Need I say more?
Actually, infra would be the executioner. Also, as already pointed
out, this practice was established a very long time ago,
On 01/22/2014 03:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
> is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
>
> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their
> freely given time nullified and access remove
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
> is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
>
> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their
> freely given time nullified and acc
On 01/22/2014 11:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
>
> People already do that without revoking commit access, e.g. when the
> recruitment project tells you they don't want to process your recruit
> or when project leads don't respond to membership applications at all
> or when the ComRel lead is not inter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/22/2014 08:00 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
People already do that without revoking commit access, e.g. when the
recruitment project tells you they don't want to process your recruit
or when project leads don't respond to membership applications at
I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their
freely given time nullified and access removed because one person
thought it was deserved.
Do you r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/20/2014 03:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman
>> wrote:
>>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to
>>> suspend people
>>>
>>> Whether this h
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:56:14PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:03:22 +0100
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > With this in mind, i currently dont see any case where QA would need
> > the ability to remove the commit access of a dev, so i dont see a
> > need for this glep update.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:03:22 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> With this in mind, i currently dont see any case where QA would need
> the ability to remove the commit access of a dev, so i dont see a
> need for this glep update.
The case you have enumerated is just one possible case, this is a case
w
Tom Wijsman schrieb:
>
> [1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48
>
> "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does
> not break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council
> meeting. The package should be dealt with per QA's request until
>
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:16:54 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who
> > > do not.
> >
> > We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is
> > optional. :)
>
> Policies don't enforce quality, people enforce qua
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who do not.
>
> We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is optional. :)
Policies don't enforce quality, people enforce quality.
And doing that is quickly frustrating.
If enforcing quality would be a
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:56:57 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who do
> not.
We have policies to enforce quality, thus frustration is optional. :)
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Of course one could see QA as defending the Portage tree with our heart;
> but not that literally, at least not up to the point that one gets
> painfully hurt or even just frustrated...
Anyone who cares about quality will be frustrated by others who do not.
//Peter
pgp8g2z
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:47:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If Comrel really objects to this I'm not entirely opposed to letting
>> QA have the reins (certainly we can't just let policy go unenforced
>> entirely). However, I would enco
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:47:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If Comrel really objects to this I'm not entirely opposed to letting
> QA have the reins (certainly we can't just let policy go unenforced
> entirely). However, I would encourage the teams to give some thought
> as to whether it makes
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> If a developer does an unannounced mass action that breaks the tree
> severely or is heavily prohibited by policy, is unreachable while he
> continues to commit this; then it would be handy to "temporarily" be
> able to withdraw the commit acce
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:09:46 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Speaking as someone who had this power in his day job, for QA to be
> able to suspend accounts is a very bad idea indeed. It always ends
> badly. I suspended 20+ accounts in my current job over the years and
> the number of cases where it
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >
> > Yey, we're allowed to sometimes do revert games, if we're asking nicely
> > ... and the only way to stop the revert game is for QA to stand down.
> > We're allowed to send strongl
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 01/20/2014 10:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to
> suspend
> >>> peop
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> Yey, we're allowed to sometimes do revert games, if we're asking nicely
> ... and the only way to stop the revert game is for QA to stand down.
> We're allowed to send strongly-worded emails, but getting things baked
> into policy is too ra
On 01/20/2014 10:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to suspend
>>> people
>>>
>>> Whether this has actually happened is something that is q
On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to suspend
>> people
>>
>> Whether this has actually happened is something that is questionable;
>
> Not that this necessarily needs to
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to suspend
> people
>
> Whether this has actually happened is something that is questionable;
Not that this necessarily needs to make it into the GLEP, and I'm
still on the fenc
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:24:30 -0800
Alec Warner wrote:
> We almost never suspend commit rights. I'm not really finding a
> situation where this is necessary. Certainly not in the streamlined
> fashion proposed here.
Well, the QA team has been inactive for a while; so, I guess this
might have been
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:22:39 -0700
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Tom Wijsman
> wrote:
> > It is more of a "Do we want QA to delegate this through ComRel or
> > not?".
>
> Actually, no. What it is is a "Subject was thoroughly discussed in the
> past, and a decision was
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to bring back for discussion an old patch to glep 48 [1]
> which was suggested by Jorge [2].
>
> That patch evolved into this one [3], and in the council meeting back
> then [4], parts of it made their way into glep 48,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> It is more of a "Do we want QA to delegate this through ComRel or not?".
Actually, no. What it is is a "Subject was thoroughly discussed in the
past, and a decision was made." More than once, in fact. What basis do
you have that would warrant
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:46:01 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> > either the QA lead or two members of the QA team can require the
> > Infra team to temporarily suspend commit access for the developer
>
> -1 to that part
>
> That sounds like you are able to make non-trivial decisions without
> the approva
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:22:07 -0700
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:02 PM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
> > This is nothing new; the qa team has requested that commit rights be
> > suspended before. I am just proposing that we actually add the
> > parts of the old patch to the glep t
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> This is nothing new; the qa team has requested that commit rights be
> suspended before. I am just proposing that we actually add the parts of
> the old patch to the glep that spell out when and how this can happen.
>
> Thoughts?
Yes, thoug
> either the QA lead or two members of the QA team can require the Infra team
> to temporarily suspend commit access for the developer
-1 to that part
That sounds like you are able to make non-trivial decisions without the
approval of the lead.
All,
I put this on the wrong list, so please disregard this here and reply
on -project instead; I forwarded this msg over there.
Thanks,
William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
All,
I would like to bring back for discussion an old patch to glep 48 [1]
which was suggested by Jorge [2].
That patch evolved into this one [3], and in the council meeting back
then [4], parts of it made their way into glep 48, but the rest seemed to
be forgotten.
Attached you will find an upd
42 matches
Mail list logo
