Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:I agree with the above point.Also, as I recall, both Pettery (betelgeuse) and Denis (calchan) have stated before that we no longer have any queue of people waiting on recruiters to join Gentoo. I'm not seeing an avalanche of new blood entering the distro, so I'm wondering where we want to go. If we keep going the route of the last months, I wonder how long it will take until we get under 150 devs. I don't think this will benefit anyone. Furthermore, the trend in the last months was in large part the result of finally retiring people that had been slacking for a long time. This proposal could (would?) lead to sending away people that still do work, albeit at a slower pace or on bursts.
We do have somewhat of a backlog at this point because Calchan was away for a while and you can always query bugzilla for the current situation.
As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that we have many different roles.
>And you are assuming that undertakers wouldn't check their role before acting.
Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their "privileges"?
AT folks aren't devs and see above.
Finally, I thought the whole point of removing access to infra boxes (which is the end result of retiring a dev), was a concern with security and not a way to get rid of people - with the exception of administrative action by devrel.
Security and gives us a better picture on what is really maintained and what is not.
I understand and agree that ebuild devs should keep a minimum level of work to justify their access to the gentoo-x86 tree. I would also like to have a few devs that can do major commits (although commit sprees can have their own problems), but I think there's still a place in this distro for people that want to maintain a few packages, that want to do AT work, that care with the QA of the tree or that work on releases. These people shouldn't be sent away, just because they can't keep with weekly commits (not enough work or time?) or because they work in bursts.
To quote myself:"How does having the average time between commits be at most a week sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?"
I didn't suggest they have to commit every week. This means 4 commits a month instead of the currently monthly or bimonthly commit check in the script.
As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. Afterall, if gentoo-x86 was a git tree and or we had acls in the tree, I don't think we would be having or would need to have this argument.
If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
