[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: [QA] Ban policy introduction SLIPUP
From:       Amy Liffey <amynka () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2018-07-31 13:36:37
Message-ID: 77a573f4-63b4-4c52-4a8f-3691c8ac9d67 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/mixed)]


Hello folks,

I apologize to everyone for sending this proposal before it was
finished. It was not voted on by the QA team hence it was not an
official proposal by the QA team. There was probably some
misunderstanding in communication.

After we finish the official draft and it is accepted by QA team
members, we will be very happy to accept comments on the mailing list in
the future.

Thank you for understanding

On behalf of QA team,

Amy Liffey

On 07/30/2018 10:03 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:52 AM Guilherme Amadio <amadio@gentoo.org
> <mailto:amadio@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> 
>     If you introduce penalties for breaking prefix as well, I'm afraid many
>     people will be unnecessarily penalized. I think that such penalties are
>     counter productive in most cases. If someone is really being careless it
>     might make sense to get some warning and lose commit access temporarily.
>     If someone made a simple mistake that can be easily fixed, like version
>     bumping a package that starts to fail in some corner case, then
>     punishment doesn't make much sense.
> 
> 
> The proposed policy already mentions that people will only be punished
> after two warnings. This seems enough for me -- if people keep breaking
> stuff despite warnings, a little penalty is probably a good thing.
> 
> The proposed policy already goes out of its way to require two warnings
> for "independent" breakage, but it's not entirely clear what independent
> means here. If you commit three breakages that are technically unrelated
> on the same day, then you probably shouldn't be banned immediately. So I
> would suggest also making clear that the warnings should be sent at
> least a few days apart and that an initial penalty cannot happen until a
> few days apart the second warning.
> 
> That said, I agree with those who are saying that breaking things should
> be obvious, things like ignoring repoman and/or other CI messaging. If
> the breakage is non-obvious and hard to spot locally, then we should
> instead invest in tooling to make it more obvious. By "ignoring" here I
> do mean that there needs to be a reasonable timeout -- sometimes if I
> commit a change and get a CI alert after a few hours, it might be tricky
> due to work/family/whatever concerns to fix it within, say, 24 hours.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dirkjan


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]