On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT] > > I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one > > devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical > > policies (not using repoman, repeatedly breaking sections of the tree, > > etcetera) that enforcement should be left up to the appropriate > > managers, not devrel. The argument was that devrel devs are often not > > experts in the technical aspects, so it's hard for them to adjudicate > > effectively. > > I should also mention that I'm not advocating this interpretation. I'd > much prefer that devrel's scope encompass such technical issues.
I'd prefer the QA project/herd handle this. In my opinion, devrel should deal in developer pissing matches (preferably kicking both parties in the head for fighting), incoming devs, outgoing devs, and carrying out punitive measures. QA involves a helluva lot more then just reacting when people complain that XYZ is screwing up the tree; proper QA involves actually identifying xyz is screwing up the tree rather then a reactive approach. Essentially, QA requires people actively auditing the tree, deps, and nudging devs to stop screwing things up, preferably with advice on how to avoid screwing up. This involves a good chunk of work, and for the work to actually go anywhere, there needs to be backing of some sort. QA has never had true backing beyond (essentially) whining to devrel that xyz is breaking stuff. It's not particularly surprising that they haven't been incredibly effective, considering that fact. Yes, Mr_bones_ will rightfully tear your ass if you keep breaking things, but ultimately it's just nagging, if he wants anything done he has to present the case to devrel, who may or may not do something. This setup I view as (bluntly) broke; devrel isn't tracking what's going on in the tree, Michael is, further he's tracking who screws up and who doesn't on a regular basis due to his scans. He knows who has been naughty or nice, essentially :) Dunno, my two cents. Not much for QA being under the auspices of devrel for the reasons above, but also keeping things seperated, and avoiding more cabal bitching. Not meaning this to be a slap in devrel's direction mind you; question of area of focus. They deal in hauling in devs, dealing with idiot devs, and chucking awol devs; I really don't see how QA falls under them beyond potentially the punitive aspect of QA having someone's cvs turned off for continually screwing up (willingly or otherwise). ~harring
pgpl2yafzQUxY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
