On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:00:57PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > I maintain very few packages these days, so it was quite a surprise to > me today when I discovered that peer review is now effectively a part of > the x86 stabilization process. When I wrote GLEP 40, the problem that I > was trying to solve was that of devs stabling packages without ever > testing the package on an actual stable system (because most devs run > ~arch). As such, the language in GLEP 40 essentially suggests that devs > could still stable their own packages, but only if they were properly > testing the package on a stable system. That policy has evolved over > time to one where devs are actively discouraged from stabling their own > packages, thereby ensuring that at least one other person examines and > tests the ebuild before it becomes stable. (I'm still not quite sure of > the actual procedure, so I'm not sure how many people are generally > involved in this peer review process.) From a QA perspective, more eyes > can only be a good thing, and this idea has been tossed around > on-and-off for years. On the other hand, peer review could potentially > really slow things down, which is why we'd always rejected that approach > in the past. Are other arch's also requiring peer review? Do we have > any statistics or anecdotal evidence for what's improving, and whether > or not anything is getting worse as a result? > The Alpha team does the exact same thing. Requiring devs to file stable bugs even if they can test on alpha hardware themselves or in some cases devs outside the team are allowed to keyword a few packages.
I've never put this into system the way the x86 team has, mostly because it's never been much of a problem with few devs having alpha hardware. It's more been a case of me (or other devs from the alpha team) randomly catching other devs in touching our keywords and asking them to abide by our keywording policy. Also, looking at http://devmanual.gentoo.org/archs/index.html you see similar policies for almost all the archs described there. The big difference I think, being how big a hammer arch teams apply and how much attention they pay to the tree regarding their keywords. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
